2012 (5) TMI 547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER Heard the learned AR as none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has held as under :- "5. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and heard them in person during the personal hearing on 11-11-2003. In this cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to existence some immovable property they will not be included in the assessable value. In the judgment in the case of Whirlwind Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III [2002 (139) E.L.T. 120 (Tri.-Mumbai)] CEGAT has held that it must be shown that the goods were not complete when they were cleared from the factory and shall acquire their complete form only when they are erected .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the transaction value is to be taken into consideration for levy of Central Excise duty. As the total consideration amount included erection and commissioning, therefore the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. We find that the respondent entered into two different contracts, one is for supply of DG sets and the other is for installation/erection and co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X