Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 1327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the respondent under CTH 49.06 and held the same to be chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty as per Sl. No. 263 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012. 1.1. Aggrieved by the setting aside of the Order-in-Original dated 17.01.2014 and dropping of the demands confirmed therein, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 2. In their grounds of appeal, the Revenue contends that the classification of the goods viz. "Drawings for the fluid bed for Distiller's Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS)" as declared by the importer is absolutely wrong in view of the agreement and contract submitted by the importer under Rule 10(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 2.1. The submission of the Revenue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y on the consignment assessed would be 7.5% plus 2% plus 1% plus 4% without extending the exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012. 2.2. The Revenue also contends that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has disregarded the pivotal point, to categorise the imported item under CTH 49.06, treating it as a distinct entity with no connection to any prior imported plant and extended the benefit of exemption under C.B.E.C. Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012. Revenue's contention is that the imported drawings are linked to "Pre Import Activity", which is substantiated by the purchase agreement. Thus, it is contended that the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to treat the impugned drawings as an independent it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6, since ETP was classifiable under CTH 8419. The respondent submits that the above said contention of the Department is clearly misplaced, inasmuch as the sub clause (iv) of clause (b) of Rule 10(1) of the Valuation Rules seems to have been read in isolation by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that a bare perusal of the above provisions clearly indicates that the inclusion of the cost of engineering, development, art work, design work, plants and sketches can only be considered, when the same are supplied by the buyer to the supplier of the imported goods. In the instant case, the Agreement clearly states that the impugned drawings were supplied by the foreign supplier namely M/s. Imtech Ventilex and not by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ial, topographical or similar purposes, being originals drawn by hand; hand-written texts: photographic reproductions on sensitized paper and carton copies. This heading covers industrial plans and drawings the purpose of which, generally, is to indicate the position and relation of parts or features of buildings, machinery or other constructions either as they exist, or for the guidance of builders or manufacturers in their construction (eg., architects' or engineers plans and drawings). The plans and drawings may include specifications, directions, etc. printed or not. In the instant case, the supplier, M/s Ventilex B. V. confirmed that these drawings are original, taken print out from computer and solely prepared in accordance to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mise, that since the value of the impugned drawings was to be included in the assessable value of the equipment imported and/or to be imported subsequently in terms of provisions laid down under Rule 10(1)(b)(iv) of the Valuation Rules, therefore, the impugned goods were classifiable under CTH 84.19 instead of CTH49.06, since ETP was classifiable under CTH 84.19. The above said contention of the Department is clearly misplaced, inasmuch as the sub clause (iv) of clause (b) of Rule 10(1) of the Valuation Rules seems to have been read in isolation. 5.5. We find that the Department had erroneously assessed the goods under CTH 84.19 which inter alia covers," Machinery, plant or laboratory equipment for the treatment of materials by a process i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates