9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same lines. Synopsis of all the seven contracts are contained in Annexure A . The present appeals relate to the turnkey contract for modernization of the Rolling Mill-I (Appeal No. C-1/2002) and Rolling Mill-II (Appeal No. C/V-537/2001) whereunder, inter alia, the equipments were imported as well as designs and engineering charges were also paid for to the concerned consortium and Indian companies whose leader was the foreign party H K Germany. The contract was with the consortium. The contract provides for foreign supervision under payment of charges during manufacture of Indian as well as for erection, commissioning and performance guarantee tests. 2. Import of the equipments as well as engineerings and drawings mostly took place dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules read with Section 14. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31st May, 2001 of the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant preferred an appeal, hence this appeal. Therefore, the order being common, they are being disposed off by this common order. The issue involved in these cases are : (i) Whether the basic design and engineering fee of DM 2.230 million and foreign supervision charges of DM 0.675 million are liable to be added to the invoice values of imported equipments under Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules ? (Appeal No. C/V-537/2001) (ii) Whether the charges towards basic design and engineering fee of DM 6.650 million, fee for as built drawings of DM 0.100 million and also supervision charges of DM 2.842 mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court, in Mukund Ltd. s case (supra) has or can have no manner of applicability whatsoever to the present case. It is significant to note in this respect that in both TISCO Ltd. s case 2000 (116) E.L.T. 422 (S.C.) (supra) (which was latter in point of time) and Mukund Ltd. s case (supra), the Presiding Judge of the Hon ble Supreme Court was Justice S.P. Bharucha. It is thus evident and obvious that the Hon ble Supreme Court was fully aware of the distinct features of the two cases. 4. Similarly reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad v. Essar Gujarat Ltd. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.) is also completely misplaced. From the judgment of the Supreme Court it would be seen that what h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find any reason to uphold the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner in this regard. 6. In view of the clear cut decision in the case of Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. case (supra), we find that the issue is very settled by series of decisions of this Tribunal and heard the case referred into Indo Gulf Corpn. Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 77 (T). 7. Neither in Section 14 of the said Act nor in the Valuation Rules is there any provision which provides that the cost of drawings and technical documents required for procurement or manufacture of goods in India by the importer or which relates to post importation activities for assembly, construction, erection, operation and maintenance of the plant are to be included in the price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
