Page 100 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

490 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Activities undertaken by the buyer on his own account, other than those for
which an adjustment is provided in Rule 9, are not considered to be an in-
direct payment to the seller, even though they might be regarded as of ben-
efit to the seller. The costs of such activities shall not, therefore, be added to
the price actually paid or payable in determining the value of imported
goods :
The value of imported goods shall not include the following charges or
costs, provided that they are distinguished from the price actually paid or
payable for the imported goods :
(a) charges for construction, erection, assembly, maintenance or
technical assistance, undertaken after importation on import-
ed goods such as industrial plant, machinery or equipment;
(b) the cost of transport after importation;
(c) duties and taxes in India.
The price actually paid or payable refers to the price for the imported
goods. Thus the flow of dividends or other payments from the buyer to the
seller that do not relate to the imported goods are not part of the customs
value.”
16. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the following authori-
ties in support of his submissions :
“(1) (2015) 8 SCC 175 = 2015 (319) E.L.T. 202 (S.C.) : Commissioner of Cus-
toms v. Essar Steel
(2) (2000) 3 SCC 472 : M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. CCE
(3) (2007) 9 SCC 401 = 2007 (208) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.) : Commissioner of
Customs v. J.K. Corp. Ltd.
(4) (2015) 14 SCC 750 = 2015 (320) E.L.T. 42 (S.C.) : Commissioner of
Customs v. Hindalco Industries
(5) (2015) 16 SCC 506 = 2015 (324) E.L.T. 431 (S.C.) : Commissioner of
Customs v. Denso Kirloskar Industries
(6) (2007) 5 SCC 371 = 2007 (213) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) : Commissioner of
Customs v. Toyota Kirloskar
(7) (2008) 4 SCC 563 = 2008 (224) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) : Commissioner of
Customs v. Ferodo India (P) Ltd.
17. In the case of Essar Steel Limited (supra), there were two contracts
with the overseas exporter. One was a purchase order for setting up of a plant.
The other was between Met Chem Canada Inc. with Essar Ltd. to associate the
former as a technical consultant to render technical services in relation to imple-
mentation of a project to set up a plant in India for manufacture of hot rolled
steel coils in India. The technical service agreement was in relation to implemen-
tation of the project. The revenue had taken the stand that customs duty was to
be imposed was on both the goods and the intangible items as these were not
independent of each other and the contract for design engineering and technical
services constituted condition of sale for the contract of supply of goods. This is a
stand similar to that taken by revenue in this case as well. This Court, referring to
various authorities held that it was not permissible on the part of the revenue to
include in the assessable value the value or charges for items which were to be
used or utilized for post-importation activities. In paragraph 14 of the said re-
port, it has been observed and held :-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  100