2004 (2) TMI 494 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for assessable value computation of imported machine, inclusion of consumables and spares, service charges in machine value, rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector, appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), inclusion of service charges in assessable value under Rule 9, assessment of spares along with machine, appeal decision.

Analysis:
The appellants filed a refund claim seeking Rs. 11,06,138/-, contending that the assessable value of the imported machine was miscalculated as consumables and spares were separately assessed and service charges were erroneously included in the machine's value. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim, stating that separately supplied spares should be assessed separately as they are not compulsory supplies. Additionally, he argued that service charges should be included in the assessable value under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The appeal was made to the Commissioner (Appeals), who also dismissed the appeal.

Upon hearing both sides, the advocate for the appellants argued that the service charges were for post-importation activities like construction and maintenance, and were not paid to the supplier as the appellants themselves undertook these tasks. Referring to Rule 4, which excludes charges for construction and assembly from the value of imported goods if distinguished from the price paid for the goods, it was held that the service charges should not be included in the assessable value as they were clearly distinguished. Regarding the contention of assessing spares along with the machine, it was noted that the spares were not compulsory supplies and were separately charged for, as indicated in the invoice. Thus, the appellant's argument on this point was rejected.

In conclusion, it was decided that service charges should not be included in the imported goods' value, and the spares imported with the machines were correctly assessed separately. The assessable value was to be recalculated based on these findings, and the appellants were granted partial relief in accordance with the law. The appeal was partly allowed.