ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 71/99-Cus., dated 29-4-1999, passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore.
2. The appellants, M/s. BILT Chemicals Ltd., imported high power Diesel Generating Set. The dispute is in respect of additional charges later paid by the appellants in respect of supervision for erection and commissioning of the said Generating equipment with the help of foreign engineers deputed by the sellers. According to the Department, those charges later paid by the appellants become part of the assessable value. According to the Department, since such supervision and commissioning were covered in Article 10 of the contract governing the import of the goods and further since the Article regarding the performance testing of the Diesel Engines that it would almost make it compulsory for the said generating set to be installed only by the supplier’s engineers and even though the contract did not specifically mention that such supervision was compulsory, the same should be added.
3. Shri K. Parameshwaran, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue involved herein has been covered by a series of decisions including the following –
(a) Scan Electronics v. Collector - 1988 (35) E.L.T. 690 (T) (b) Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 263 (T) (c) Manchanda Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner - 1999 (33) RLT 929 (T) (d) Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co. Ltd. v. Collector - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) (e) CC v. Rockland Building Material Ltd. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 228 (T) (f) Kumar Associates v. Collector - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 500 (T) (g) Polyvinyl Indl. Corporation, v. Collector - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 426 (T)
He submitted that the Larger Bench decision in the case of Scan Electronics (supra), it was clearly held that Travelling expenses and daily allowance of supplier’s personnel being post-importation charges excludible from assessable value. He said that the view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex Court by dismissing the appeal, as per the Court Room Highlights reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. A33-34. Further, he said, following the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal has taken the view in the case of Manchanda Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) that Installation and Training charges – optional and charged separately, not to be included in assessable value of the goods.
4. Smt. Radha Arun, SDR, for Revenue submitted that the decisions referred to and relied upon by the Counsel are not applicable in view of the fact that those decisions are prior to the introduction of the Customs Valuation Rules. She also submitted that as per the contract, the supervision and technical expenses incurred by the parry become a part of the price as per Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules and the same is to be included.
5. Shri Parameshwaran submitted that even subsequent to the introduction of Valuation Rules, the Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that subsequent supervision and training charges cannot be added to the assessable value since these are only post and importation charges. Further, Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules specified that technical charges are not to be included in determining the assessable value. He said that Valuation Rules are to be read in sequence and accordingly, Rule 4 overrides the Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules. He also submitted that it is not a case that the party has paid the amount in lump sum and daily expenses were given to the technical staff as can be seen from the respective invoices.
6. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that in the instant case, separate invoices have been raised by the suppliers which shows separate installation charges and training charges including the expenses of the supplier’s technicians. It was also fairly submitted by the Counsel that the said amount was not paid in lump sum but paid daily to meet the daily expense and as such, it cannot be a part of the price. We find that lot of force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee with reference to the facts. It was also argued by the Counsel that the Installation and Training charges are only optional. On going through the relevant invoices and the evidence placed before us and following the decisions referred to by the Counsel, we are of the view that daily expenses incurred by the appellants towards the supervision and technical charges not to be added in determining the assessable value.
7. In the view we have taken, the appeal is allowed.