9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Dispute over additional charges paid for supervision and commissioning, Assessable value determination based on Customs Valuation Rules. Analysis: The appeal concerned additional charges paid by the appellants for supervision and commissioning of a Diesel Generating Set, disputed by the Department to be part of the assessable value. The Department argued that as per the contract, these charges should be included in the assessable value. The appellants contended that previous decisions supported excluding such charges from the assessable value, citing various cases as precedents. The appellants' advocate argued that post-importation charges like supervision and technical expenses should be excluded from the assessable value based on previous judgments. The advocate highlighted that the Tribunal had consistently ruled in favor of excluding such charges even after the introduction of the Valuation Rules. He emphasized that technical charges were specifically excluded under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, overriding Rule 9. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that separate invoices were raised for installation and training charges, including expenses for the supplier's technicians. It was observed that the charges were not paid in a lump sum but on a daily basis to cover daily expenses. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments and the evidence presented, concluding that the daily expenses for supervision and technical charges should not be included in determining the assessable value. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the analysis that the daily expenses incurred for supervision and technical charges should not be added to the assessable value. The decision was made in line with previous judgments and the specific provisions of the Customs Valuation Rules, emphasizing the exclusion of such charges from the assessable value calculation.
|
