9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority as gross error of law was committed by both the authorities issue which ought to have been considered by these authorities was whether the design and engineering charges paid by was liable to be included in the assessable value of the imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules 1963 which were in force during the period of imports. - C/328/2007 - FINAL ORDER NO.417/2012 - Dated:- 14-6-2012 - P.G. Chacko And M. Veeraiyan, JJ. Appellant Rep by: Mr S.K. Mohanty, Adv. Respondent Rep by: Mr Ganesh Haavanur, AR. Per: P.G. Chacko: This appeal filed by the assessee brings up a valuation dispute in respect of the equipments imported by them from M/s Five Call Badcock,(FCB for short) France during the period from Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Nalco and M/s FCB and claimed that there was nothing to indicate any connection between the design and engineering charges and the imported equipments so as to attract the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) ibid. He also claimed support from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Tata Iron and Steel Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise [2000 (116) ELT 422 (SC)] wherein the applicability of the above Rule to assessment of the goods in question was examined and a decision rendered in favour of the importer. The learned counsel also referred to SRF Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2003 (161) ELT 721 (Tri-Del) wherein engineering fee paid by the assessee to the foreign supplier was held not includible in the assessable value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Admittedly, the goods in question were imported in 1985 and 1986 when the Customs Valuation Rules 1963 were in force. The original authority and the appellate authority invoked Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 which were not invoked in the show cause notice. Obviously a gross error of law was committed by both the authorities. The issue which ought to have been considered by these authorities was whether the design and engineering charges paid by NALCO to FCB was liable to be included in the assessable value of the imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules 1963 which were in force during the period of imports. We therefore set aside the impugned orders and allow this appeal by way of remand with a direction to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
