https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215529 Customs demand could not be sustained on a ground different from the show cause notice: the notice proceeded under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules, but the adjudicating authority rejected that basis and instead denied Project Import treatment and classified drawings and designs as machinery. A duty demand cannot be upheld on a footing not put to notice. Since the goods were not assessed as part of Project Import, they had to be classified independently on their own merits, and drawings and designs were correctly classifiable under Heading 49.06. The demand was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215529 Customs demand could not be sustained on a ground different from the show cause notice: the notice proceeded under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules, but the adjudicating authority rejected that basis and instead denied Project Import treatment and classified drawings and designs as machinery. A duty demand cannot be upheld on a footing not put to notice. Since the goods were not assessed as part of Project Import, they had to be classified independently on their own merits, and drawings and designs were correctly classifiable under Heading 49.06. The demand was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215529