9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r this Heading has to be extended to the goods in question - entire demand is unsustainable in law - C/793/2003 - Final Order No. A/88/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 20-1-2012 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for the appellant Shri Sanjay Kalara, Appraiser (AR) for the respondent Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: 296/2002-MCH dated 07/05/2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows: 2.1. The appellant, M/s. Polyolefins Industries Ltd. (known as NOCIL ) applied for registration of a project contract under purchase order No. IMP/36006 dated 29/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawings and designs by airfreight at the Sahar Air Cargo Customs and the assessments of the said drawings and designs is a subject matter of a separate proceedings before the Air Cargo Customs. The appellant vide a letter dated 07/10/1994 submitted the documents for reconciliation and finalisation of assessment as Project Import and by letter dated 07/08/1995, the Assistant Collector of Customs informed the appellant that the assessment of the goods under Project Import had been finalised and requested the appellant to submit a copy of challan of cash security made by the appellant for preparing the refund order towards the cash security. The appellant vide letter dated 25/08/1995 submitted the said challan and requested for refund of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been finalised and they were directed to apply for refund of 5% cash security. Vide letter dated 25/08/1995, they had submitted all required documents for refund of cash security and the department did not initiate any action in spite of reminder by the appellant on 14/01/1998. Thereafter, the appellant has been issued a show cause notice dated 18/03/1998 proposing to include the value of the drawings and designs in the value of the machinery imported under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules. In the adjudication order, it is clearly recorded that Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) does not apply in this case nor Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules . In other words, the proposition in the show cause notice has been negatived by the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity has concluded that the said rule does not apply to the facts of the case nor Rule 9(1)(e). Having given a finding negativing the proposal in the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority could not have confirmed the duty demand on a totally different ground altogether. On the one hand, the department wants to include the value of the drawings and designs in the value of the machinery which has been assessed to duty under Project Imports under Heading No. 9801; at the same time, they do not want to give the benefit of Project Imports for drawings and designs on the ground that, if that value is included it would exceed the value recommended for Project Imports by the sponsoring authority. Nevertheless, they want to classify the drawi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
