9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same is not includable for the assessable value. The total value of the contract was DM165 million and the appellant s had claimed deduction for dismantling charges for DM 57 million in particular case and other items pertain to other charges were not disputed. 3. Ld. Consultant Shri Kumarasamy points out that the only issue in this case is pertaining to exclusion of dismantling charges from the assessable value. He points out that both the authorities have committed the basic error in the order inasmuch as they have proceeded to apply the old Section 14 of Customs Act as it stood prior to amendment. The Section prior to amendment has been extracted in order-in-original and the Assistant Commissioner without examining the provision to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achineries in the case of Essar Gujarat Ltd. v. CC as reported in [1996 (88) E.L.T. 609] which is also distinguishable from the facts of the present case. He fervently appeals to the Bench to examine the entire documents on record including the contract and give a final finding on facts itself as the matter has been pending long. 4. Ld. DR, Shri C. Mani concedes to the points that both the authorities have misapplied the law as applicable to the facts of the case but contends that the entire facts and the documents are required to be examined by the original authority. The same has not been examined to come to a conclusion as to whether the importer has borne the element of dismantling charges in terms of contract. This being the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the seller. The appellant s plea that there has been wrong application of both laws by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the facts but has stated the Tribunal s judgment rendered in the case of Bombay Dyeing (supra) without examining the provisions of law and also other various pleas raised by the appellant. Therefore, both the orders are non-speaking orders and are against the provisions of law. The prayer of ld. Consultant for scrutinizing all the original documents and to give a final finding at this stage is not possible for the reasons that both the orders are not correct orders in terms of law and they have not applied their mind. Had the authorities examined the original documents and expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
