5. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. In order to attract Rule 9(1)(b)(iv), two requirements are to be satisfied. The first being that engineering, development, art work, design work, plans and sketches should be necessary for the production of the imported goods. The second is that these should have been "undertaken elsewhere than in India".

6. It is the Revenues case that the process diagram and equipment specification supplied by M/s. GE Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. BV, Netherlands were vital for the preparation of detailed engineering drawings for the manufacture of the imported equipment and that is sufficient to attract the provisions of the Rule. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the enquiry documents were prepared on the basis of Basic Engineering Package. This reasoning of the Commissioner is not supported by the Rule. Rule does not take in such remote connection. The Rule permits inclusion of only engineering drawings, designs etc. "necessary for the production of the imported goods". That is to say, the material in question should be directly necessary for the production of the imported goods. The gap between Basic Engineering Drawings and detailed drawing is vast. The one provides all the detailed inputs for undertaking manufacture. The other merely indicates the lay out, relative size etc. From the size specifications alone construction of engineering equipment is not feasible. From a perusal of the process chart, it is clear that is only indicated the lay out and volume specifications of individual equipment. It is merely a sketch representation of the plant. It was not possible to manufacture equipment based on this. Further, if it were to be so, the appellant would not engage another engineering firm, namely Davy Power gas India Pvt. Ltd. for developing the detailed design/engineering drawing. The second requirement under the Rule is that the design work, drawing etc. should have been "undertaken elsewhere than in India". We have already noted that what is attracted by the Rule are the detailed design work, Drawing etc. undertaken by Davy Power Gas India Pvt. Ltd. That work was undertaken in India. And work undertaken in India is not attracted by the Rule.

7. From what is stated above, it is clear that the Basic Engineering Package supplied by the joint venture partner does not come within the scope of the Rule for the reason that that package was not what was "necessary" for the manufacture of the equipment and what was necessary was "undertaken in India".

8. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that findings in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not warranted in the facts of the case and the legal provision. This is the view we took in the case of SRF Ltd. also. In this legal and factual position, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. It is accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed.