9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nakaran, AO, for the Appellant. Shri S. Ramanathan, for the Respondents. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. C/COD/28-29/97- B.2 are filed by the applicants/appellants to condone delay in filing the supplementary appeals. The delay is condoned in filing appeals since the main appeal was in time, as per practice of the Tribunal. 2. The appellants are, true to their name, manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is rule but the same has been denied on the ground that separate charge is made for the accessories and spares. 3. Arguing the appeal, learned Senior Counsel Shri A.S. Nambiar with Shri P. K. Manohar, Advocate submits that the contract was for consolidated price for both machinery and accessories and parts. The invoices covering the import were also at consolidated price. He submits that in thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Technological Centre, reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 116, in support of the contention that indicating split price of accessories does not constitute separate charge. 4. Heard Shri Ramanathan, learned DR for the Revenue. He submits that contract is the main document covering the import. It has clearly indicated (Annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n any event, it cannot be held that charging for the goods was in terms of this Appendix. Therefore, this appendix cannot be the reason for holding that importers were charged separately for the machinery and accessories by their supplier. In these facts and circumstances, we hold that this was not a case of price being charged separately for the machine and the accessories and spare parts warrant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
