9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to duty and thereafter assessments were finalised for the purpose of import under Project Import regulations under Customs Tariff Heading 9801 and also for the value to be determined under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the relevant Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. The Collector (Appeals) in Appeal No. C/302/95-A against which the appellants has come in appeal, has held as under : "The order of the Assistant Collector is modified. He may ascertain the details of the charges paid or payable to SNAM Progetti for the service enumerated under Article 5(2) of the Agreement. The portion of payments which reflected the cost of services other than detailed Engineering is not includible in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided by the supplier should be added to the value of the imported plant. 7. There is no controversy over the fact that the catalysts have to be assessed at the concessional rate applicable to project imports. The appellants have to pay Rs. 22,25,536/- on this account. The appellants have to pay Rs. 4,24,43,215/- on the ground that DM 2,29,73,798/- is to be included in the assessable value. Thus, the total amount payable by the appellants is Rs. 4,46,59,751/-. ORDER In view of the above, the order in original dated 25-3-1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is correct both on facts and in law. The same is upheld and the appeal is rejected." 4. Appeal No. C/156/98 is before us, against this order and findings of the Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia and the engineering and drawing charges and other charges incurred is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Petro Chemical reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 275 (S.C.) and in the case of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 276. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Essar Gujarat Ltd. reported in 1998 (88) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.). (b) He submits that there is clear cut findings by the Collector (Appeals) in the order impugned in appeal No. C/302/95-A regarding inability of the appellants to have given break-up of the cost and he supports the order of the Collector (Appeals) in that case and as regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order in appeal No. C/156/98, the submission of the learned Counsel that the matter was heard by the then Collector (Appeals) Shri MVS Prasad and thereafter the order was passed by Shri A.K. Srivastava, Collector, Hyderabad who succeeded him as Collector (Appeals), Hyderabad and no fresh hearings were granted by Shri A.K. Srivastava to them. The rights of natural justice of the appellants have been therefore, violated by the denial of this opportunity of fresh hearing by the successor in office. Therefore, we cannot find any reason to uphold the order, especially when the appellants are submitting and bringing to our attention various documents and particulars regarding break-up of costs available, which should be considered by the low ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
