9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Shri C.S. Rajput, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - The only dispute in this appeal is that whether out of the design and engineering charges of US $ 2,80,000, an amount of 30,000 US $ already included in the assessable value of the excisable goods which is reactor, calls for addition of balance of US $ 2,40,000 to the assessable value of the reactor. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1,90,50,000.00, the attributable design and engineering charges for manufacture the reactor was 40,000 US $ exhibited by page 18 of the paper book. Revenue conceded that entire drawing and engineering charges was 2,80,000 US$ as appearing at page 18 should be included in the assessable value of reactor. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri Ravi Raghvan appearing for the appellant submits that the other design ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) CCE, Bangalore v. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 334 (Tri.-Bang.) 3. Ld. DR. on behalf of Revenue submits that entire design and engineering charges as appearing at page 18 of the Appeal folder being relatable to the reactor, whole of the value of design and engineering should be included in the assessable value of the reactor in terms of Valuation Rules. He relied on the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th total value addition into fold of law in absence of any evidence to show that the value of engineering charges to the tune of 2,40,000 US$ was deliberately segregated to avoid payment of duty. There is no evidence on record to show that the engineering and designing charges of 2,40,000 US$ relate to the reactor only by any means or strength of law. We are compelled to interpretate the word 'suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
