2008 (8) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd a finding regarding applicability or otherwise of Rule 4, Rule 9(1)(b), Rule 9(1)(e) of Customs Valuation Rules and the assessment already made of design engineering and site run under Chapter 49 – matter remanded - 222 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2008 - Ashok Bhan and J.M. Panchal, JJ. S/Shri S K Bagaria, Sr. Advocate, Rupesh Kumar and Tara Chandra Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellant. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the revenue. Another aspect which was covered by the notice was as to whether the goods were liable to be confiscated warranting demand of redemption fine. Notice also mentioned as to why penalty should not be levied under Section 112(a) of the Act. 2. The issues regarding confiscation and penalty have been decided in favour of the assessee. The revenue has not filed any appeal against the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vokability of Rule 9(1)(b) and Rule 9(1)(e) read with Rule 4. The Tribunal has not referred to either of these rules while deciding the question of includability of the charges for importation of design engineering and site run in the assessable value of the fermenters. Another point raised by the assessee was that design engineering and site run had already been assessed separately under Chapter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X