TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CCE, C & ST, Visakhapatnam-l Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., OIA No.53/2009 V CH dated 24.04.9009 2. C/551/2009 CCE, C & ST, Visakhapatnam-l Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., OIA No. 57/2009 V CH dated 09.06.2009 3. C/563/2009 CCE, C & ST, Visakhapatnam-l Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., OIA No.61/2009 V CH dated 16.06.2009 4. C/584/2009 CCE, C & ST, Visakhapatnam-l Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., OIA No.64/2009 V CH dated 20.07.9009 5. C/627/2009 CCE, C & ST, Visakhapatnam-l Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., OIA No.67/2009 V CH dated 18.08.2009 6 C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dering the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules made there under came to a conclusion that the addition 50% of the supervision charges in the assessable value is incorrect as these charges are for under taking work of supervision in India, which is post import activity and does not relate to manufacture of the equipment itself. 4. Learned Departmental Representative would submit that the Fist Appellate Authority has incorrectly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel Ltd. [2015 (319) ELT 202] that the allowance of technology know how of the equipments supplied is getting the same manufactured from different vendors approved by the various importers hence the supervision charges are p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld submitts that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Ahmadabad Vs. Essar Steel Ltd., [2015 (319) ELT 202] is directly on the point as to what should be included in the assessable value of imported goods and the same has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd., [2015 (320) ELT 421 and Same Engines India Pvt. Ltd., [201 5 (325) ELT 241]. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records, it is undisputed that the assessable value of the goods imported has been loaded with 50% of the charges supposedly paid by the respondent for supervision of erection, testing, commissioning and training agreement. We find that the First Appellate Authority a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. The above said factual findings are not being challenged by the Revenue in the memorandum of appeal and has contested the said findings only question of law, as to applicability of the Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 has decided by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Ltd. We find that Learned Counsel was correct in bringing to our notice the case of Essar Steel Ltd., (supra) wherein Apex Court has specifically dealt with the very same activity of technical services provided for set up, commissioning and whether the charges paid for such setting up and commissioning and supervision charges needs to be included in the assessable value of imported goods are not Their Lordships after considering the factual position and the provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or delay in commissioning the plant and for failure to achieve the stipulated performance, of which are post-importation activities. 11. Another thing to be noticed is that a conjoint reading [he technical services agreement and the purchase order do not lead to the conclusion that the technical services agreement is in any way a pre-condition the sale of the plant itself. On the contrary, as has been pointed out above, the technical services agreement read as a is really only to successfully set up, commission and operate the plant after it has been imported into India. It is clear, therefore, that clause 9(1)(e) would not be attracted on the facts of this case and consequently the consideration for the technical services to be provided....