- (1.) Civil Appeal No. 2420 of 2005 The Respondent-Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of copper and copper products in their smelter plant. For setting up of the said smelter plant, it had imported certain capital goods from a few foreign suppliers, which included M/s. Outokumpu Engineering Contractors, Finland (for short "OEC"). Three agreements of dated 12th November, 1994 were entered into between the Respondent and the OEC. These are known as Licence Agreement, Delivery of Proprietary Equipments Agreement and Basic Engineering, Training and Technical Services Agreement. Under the Delivery of Proprietary Equipments Agreement, capital goods for setting up of the plant in the sum of US $ 2,10,25,000/- were imported. The bill of entry showing the aforesaid invoice value was filed. The Customs Authorities, however, wanted to load this price with the consideration that was agreed for Licence Agreement as well as Basic Engineering, Training and Technical Services Agreement. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, after issuing show cause notice, held that the payments made in the other two agreements need not be added to the invoice Under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. However, the assessable value of the equipment imported for sulphuric acid plant should be loaded by 2.03% of the said Rules.
(2.) The Department felt aggrieved against this approach of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the said appeal holding that the licence fee and fees paid for basic engineering services should be added to the invoice price of the imported goods for the copper smelting plant in terms of Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules.
(3.) Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessee preferred appeal which has been allowed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by the impugned judgment.;