ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. the matter relates to the valuation with regard to the import of the waste recovery system based on the glycolysis of waste polyester fibre. During the course of manufacture of fibre certain waste arises. With a view to cycle such waste for making useable fibre, the appellants imported the equipment from the supplier of their main Plant. On 14.10.88 the appellant had entered into an agreement with the supplier M/s Du Pont for the import of such recovery system. As part of the agreement, certain fees and others charges were to be made. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs who adjudicated the matter was of the view that declared price of the imported equipment was to be loaded by amount referred to by him in the last part of his order in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules read with Section 14 (1) of the Customs Act. This Order was confirmed by the Commr. of Customs (Appeals).
2. Shri R.N. Bajoria, Senior Advocate with Shri B. Saha, Advocate appeared for the appellants and submitted that the payments were not exclusively towards machinery imported but were also for the technical know-how which had no relationship with the imported equipment. He submits that all their statement have not been duly taken note of and full facts had not been crystalised in the impugned orders. In reply Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, SDR refers to the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Uptron Colour Picture Tube Limited vs. C.C., Mumbai – 2000 (41) RLT 751 (CEGAT). In rejoinder, a reference was made by the Senior Advocate to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & C., Bhubaneswar – 2000 (37) RLT 239 (SC) and submits that the matter has not been examined in the light of this authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court.
3. After hearing both sides and after going through the facts on record we consider that the matter had to be reexamined in the light of the case-law cited by both sides. The nature of the payment precisely had to be gone in detail and no general view could be taken without reference to the imported equipment. The terms and conditions of the contract have also to be gone into detail to crystalise position of payment vis-a-vis the cost of the imported equipment declared. The matter had to be reexamined in the light of the case-law cited across the Bar as the lower authorities had not discussed the matter in the light of these decisions.
4. Thus without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remand the matter to the jurisdictional Adjudicating authority for de novo consideration after affording an opportunity to both sides and then pass a speaking appealable order as per law. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & pronounced in Court)