2017 (1) TMI 1691

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Advocate For the Respondent: Mr.Sanjay Jain, D.R. ORDER PER: B. RAVICHANDRAN The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2011 of Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-I. The appellants imported various machineries in connection with setting up of their textile plant. The foreign supplier of goods was also involved in installation, erection and commissioning of the imported machinery in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n India during the material time. (b) Some of the machines have been clearly installed prior to 18.04.2006, the date of introduction of Section 66 A. (c) The contract and the invoice for import of various machinery clearly indicate that the consideration is in lump-sum involving supply of goods and their erection in the premises of the appellant. (d) The customs duty has been discharged on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....04.2006. Similarly, there are certain indications, based on the correspondence entered into by the appellant with the supplier of machines, that the supplier appears to have had an establishment in India during the material time. Further, the contract for importation of this machinery is, admittedly, a composite one for lump-sum payment which included installation and erection of the machine at th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e find, prima-facie, the split up of value for service tax purpose, when the whole value has been subjected to customs duty towards import of goods, is not sustainable. However, the basic facts like contract and the invoices alongwith the other issues raised by the appellant is to be examined afresh by the original authority. We also note that composite non-vivisectable contracts are not liable to....