Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 549 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue against Order in Appeal No. 76 & 77/1998 setting aside duty demand. 2. Inclusion of value of bought out items and erection charges in assessable value. 3. Dispute over duty chargeable based on price list. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with two appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the Order in Appeal No. 76 & 77/1998, where duty demand against a company was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue contended that duty should be charged on the entire contracted price mentioned in the price list, while the Commissioner (Appeals) held that duty is not chargeable on bought out items or components of the boiler assembled on-site. 2. The respondents were supplying boiler parts to customers, including parts purchased from the market and parts assembled on-site. The adjudicating authority had previously ruled that the value of bought out items and erection charges should not be included in the assessable value. Despite this, the duty was confirmed on the entire contracted price due to it being listed in the price list. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly determined that duty should not be charged on bought out items or components assembled on-site, as previously established by the adjudicating authority. 3. The crux of the dispute revolved around whether duty should be charged based on the price list figure or if it should exclude the cost of bought out items and erection charges. The Tribunal emphasized that once it was established by the adjudicating authority that these charges should not be part of the assessable value, there was no justification for charging a differential duty solely based on the overall price listed. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming that duty should not be levied on the excluded charges. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision upheld the exclusion of bought out items and erection charges from the assessable value, emphasizing that duty should not be imposed based on the total price listed when these components were not meant to be included.
|