TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants herein have been dismissed accepting the contention of the respondent, Brihanmumbai Mahangar Palika, that for the purpose of payment of octroi duty when the goods are to be valued, customs duty shall also be added. The entire dispute in these appeals is, therefore, as to whether such customs duty is to be added to the value of goods for the purpose of payment of octroi under Bombay Municipal Corporation (Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). This issue has arisen in the following background: The appellants herein had imported certain computer parts and claimed exemption from payment of customs duty thereupon invoking the provisions of Notification No. 133 of 1994 dated 22.06.1994. As per the aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her limitations and conditions as may be specified in this behalf by the Development Commissioner of the Zone, on payment of duty of excise leviable thereon under section 3 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or where such articles (including rejects, waste and scrap material) are not excisable, on payment of customs duty on the said goods used for the purpose of production, manufacture, processing or packaging of such articles in an amount equal to the customs duty leviable on such articles as if imported as such: Provided that goods which have been repaired, reconditioned or reengineered shall not be allowed to be cleared outside the Zone." 2. It is the case of the appellants that in terms of the relevant Export-Import p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....becomes clear that for ascertaining the value of the goods not only the original invoice but certain other charges like shipping dues, insurance, custom duty, excise duty, countervailing duty etc. are also includible in the value of articles if such charges are, in fact, incurred by the assessee or even "liable to be incurred by the importer". It was the case of the respondent-Corporation that since 25 per cent of the production was allowed to be cleared in the domestic market subject to payment of excise duty, equivalent to the custom duty, is added. We find that the aforesaid position taken by the respondent-Corporation does not flow either from the reading of Rule 2(7)(a) or paragraph 3 of Notification No. 133 of 1994 dated 22.06.1994. ....