2018 (3) TMI 1259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubmission in the reply and in their additional submission before the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority has not considered properly. Therefore, the matter needs to be considered. As regards the issue that the SCN invoked Rule 9(1)(e) whereas the impugned order confirmed inclusion of value of design and engineering invoking Rule 9(1)(b)(iv), this issue also needs to be considered. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri T. Viswanathan, Advocate, for appellant Ms. P.V. Shekhar, Joint Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The facts of the case are that the appellant has imported equipments for pulverized coal injection system un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es, 1988 in order to include the value of design and engineering charges. However, in the adjudication order, the inclusion was made invoking Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Therefore, to this extent, the order is beyond the scope of the show cause notice, hence not sustainable. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 2000(116) ELT 422 (SC); (ii) Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (85) RLT 59 (SC). 3. Ms. P.V. Shekhar, learned Joint Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. She submits that as per the contract, the design and engineering charges for erection, installation and commissioning with the condition of sale of the goods. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rules. We find that as regards the issue whether the value of design and engineering is on account of erection, installation and commissioning despite the appellant made detailed submission in the reply and in their additional submission before the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority has not considered properly. Therefore, the matter needs to be considered. As regards the issue that the show cause notice invoked Rule 9(1)(e) whereas the impugned order confirmed inclusion of value of design and engineering invoking Rule 9(1)(b)(iv), we are of the view that this issue also needs to be considered. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X