Page 105 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] UNION OF INDIA v. V.V.F. LTD. 495

ments and also services for post-importation activities, and these two sets of
items are segregable, it would be open to the importer to claim duty-exclusion in
respect of items directly relatable to post-importation activities in cases where
Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules are applicable. The cases of J.K. Corp. Ltd. (supra),
Hindalco Industries, Denso Kirloskar (supra), Toyota Kirloskar (supra) all deal with
exclusion of value of post-import activities.
28. In the present appeal, involving two import consignments, the au-
thorities of First Instance and the Appellate Authority proceeded on the basis
that since all the scheduled items formed part of the same contract and were
linked with activities at post-import stage with the imported equipments, the
provisions of Section 9(1)(e) could be invoked. Such reasoning infers subsistence
of conditions for awarding post-importation work to the overseas consortia or
makes import of both sets of items otherwise interdependent. We find from the
orders-in-original that the stand of SAIL was consistent that the subject drawings
and specifications did not relate to the equipments imported and was meant for
post-importation activities and there was no condition laid down that the import
of the equipments were to be supplemented by post-importation work.
29. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with
the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed.
30. There shall be no order as to costs. All connected applications shall
stand disposed of.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 495 (S.C.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
V.V.F. LTD.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2256-2263 of 2020 with C.A. Nos. 2264-2266 of 2020 ,
1
2
C.A. Nos. 2267-2275 of 2020 , C.A. Nos. 2276-2310, 2363, 2311-2335, 2364,
3
2336-2358 of 2020 , C.A. Nos. 2359-2362 of 2020 , decided on 22-4-2020
5
4
Area based exemption - Modification/variation when clarificatory and
retrospective in operation - Doctrine of promissory estoppel - Presumption
against retrospective operation - Validity of Notification Nos. 16/2008-C.E. and
36/2008-C.E. amending Notification Nos. 39/2001-C.E.; 21/2008-C.E. and 36/2008-
C.E. amending Notification No. 56/2003-C.E. as amended by Notification No.
27/2004-C.E.; Notification Nos. 20/2008-C.E., 36/2008-C.E. and 38/2008-C.E.
amending Notifications Nos. 20/2007-C.E. and 56/2003-C.E. - Notification and
industrial policy granting exemptions subsequently modified to prevent
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal against 2010 (260) E.L.T. 185 (Guj.).
2 On appeal from 2017 (354) E.L.T. 23 (Guj.), See also 2017 (354) E.L.T. A18 (S.C.).
3 On appeal from 2013 (289) E.L.T. 117 (Sikkim), See also 2017 (354) E.L.T. A106 (S.C.).
4 On appeal from 2015 (320) E.L.T. 216 (Gau.), See also 2016 (342) E.L.T. A44 (S.C.).
5 On appeal from 2018 (360) E.L.T. 609 (Sikkim), See also 2018 (361) E.L.T. A31 (S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  105