Page 336 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

982 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Valuation (Customs) (Contd.)
ibid introduced w.e.f. 1-7-2017, hence, assessee entitled to reliefs claimed
- Section 15 of Customs Act, 1962 — Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. v.
Deputy Commr. of Cus. Import (A.P.) ........................... 559
— Revaluation - Importer has to be put on notice of rejection of declared
price - In absence of acceptable defence, confiscation of goods is
administrative overreach - Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination
of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Section 111(m) of Customs
Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 849
— Revaluation - Misdeclaration based on presumed relationship between
exporter and importer indicated in investigation report - It is not
sufficient for revaluation, especially where relationship has not been
tested on Rule 2(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of
Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - In such case, revenue cannot invoke
Sections 111(m), 112 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v.
Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ................ 849
— Transaction value - Import of turnkey projects - Basic designing and
engineering fee - Whether “condition of sale” - Designs and drawings
related all post-importation project and project implementation activities
- No material to suggest that import of equipment effected with
simultaneous obligation that designs relating to post-importation
activities should also be obtained from same entity - It cannot be inferred
that since both obtained from same vendor, condition of obtaining
designs etc., for post-importation activities implicit in contract - Subject
drawings and specifications did not relate to equipment imported and
meant for post-importation activities - No condition laid down that
import of equipment were to be supplemented by post-importation work
- Rule 9(1)(e) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported
Goods) Rules, 1998 cannot be automatically applied to every import
which has surface features of a turnkey contract - Rule 9(1) ibid not
applicable - Order of Tribunal affirmed - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962
— Commissioner of Cus. (Port), Kolkata v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (S.C.) ......... 478
Value adopted for redemption of confiscated goods is not relevant for
imposing penalty - See under PENALTY ..................... 849
Variation in Area based exemption scheme when clarificatory and
retrospective in operation - See under AREA BASED EXEMPTION ...... 495
VAT subsidy under State Government scheme not includible in Central
Excise valuation - See under VALUATION (CENTRAL EXCISE) ........ 95
Vessels drawings, valuation thereof - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ... 849
Vested right on attempts to pass Customs Broker examination under
Customs Broker Regulations, 2018 - See under CUSTOMS BROKERS
LICENSING REGULATIONS, 2018 ........................ 340
VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) fee - One-time fee for supply of
goods and actual usage charges charged for supply of VSAT equipment -
Appellant not giving franchise by providing the VSAT at the learning
Centres - Appellants neither giving permission to use their name by
providing the VSAT facility nor receiving any royalty towards the
alleged franchise, therefore, agreement not classifiable as franchise
agreement - Activity at best could come under the activity of “supply of
tangible goods” vide Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 16-
5-2008; hence, for the period in question, VSAT management fee charged
towards supply of goods cannot be subjected to Service Tax during the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  336