Design and engineering charges in assessable value stayed pending appeal where they appeared linked to plant fabrication.

In a CESTAT interim stay matter, the Tribunal found the export-obligation shortfall demand prima facie supported by the Board circular, while the valuation dispute on design and engineering charges remained unproved at the interim stage. The appellant argued that the drawings and designs were required for fabrication of a plant in India, not for the imported goods, and the Tribunal accepted that this created a prima facie case against inclusion of those charges in assessable value. Pre-deposit was waived and recovery stayed pending final hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal, and whether the demand for inclusion of design and engineering charges in the assessable value was prima facie unsustainable.

Analysis: The demand relating to shortfall in export obligation was found to be prima facie supported against the appellant by the Board circular. On the valuation issue, the appellant's case was that the design and drawings were required for fabrication of the plant in India and not for the imported goods. On that basis, the Tribunal found prima facie that the design and drawings were connected with the plant fabrication and not with the imported goods, and therefore the addition of such charges to the assessable value was not established at the interim stage.

Conclusion: The appellant was granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted and the appeal was directed to be listed for regular hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellant shows a prima facie case that disputed design and engineering charges relate to fabrication of a plant in India rather than to the imported goods, pre-deposit may be waived and recovery stayed pending final hearing.

---