Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Aquarius Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

2016 (1) TMI 292 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Valuation of goods - whether the charges towards training provided to the customer's staff is includable in the assessable value or not - Held that:- The customer is at liberty to get their staff trained from the appellant or not. The appellant produced both copies of invoices where charges on account of training are recovered by the appellant and also invoices where it is not so recovered. The charges on account of training the customer's staff is separately shown in the invoices wherever charg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the computers. Similarly, in the case of Kirloskar Electric Co Ltd. [2004 (8) TMI 293 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], National Radio & Electronics Co. Ltd. [1998 (2) TMI 297 - CEGAT, MUMBAI], Minicomp Ltd. (2002 (6) TMI 146 - CEGAT, MUMBAI), it has been held that the amounts collected for training are not includable in the assessable value - charges on account of training customer's staff being purely optional has no nexus with the manufacturing and marketing of goods and therefore, not includable in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune, vide which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the refund claim by the appellant by upholding the order of the adjudicating authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an SSI unit engaged in the manufacture and sale of machines, mechanical appliances and parts thereof, i.e light weight construction equipments and systems falling under CTH No. 8479 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. During the co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es recovered on account of training the customer's staff are not includable in the assessable value. In spite of that they calculated and paid the amount of ₹ 1,78,320/- on 22/07/2002 through TR-6 challan under protest by debiting the duty in PLA without waiting for any written communication from the department. Thereafter, the appellant filed a refund claim on the basis of instructions issued by the CBEC vide Circular No. 354/81/2000-TRU dated 30/06/2000 which seeks to clarify that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

up training provided to the customers staff. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the refund claim and aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order dated 22/12/2004 rejected the refund claim by upholding the decision of the adjudicating authority. Now the appellant is before us challenging the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the charges towards training pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his contention, the learned Counsel cited the following judgements: a) PSI Data Systems Ltd., Vs. CCE-1997 (89) ELT 3 (SC) b) Thermax Ltd., vs. CCE - 1998 (99) ELT 481 (SC) c) Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2014 (307) ELT 795 (Tri-Bang) d) Rockwell Automation India Pvt. Ltd., vs. CCE - Ghaziabad - 2008 (228)ELT 127 (Tri-Del) e) Minicomp Ltd., Vs. CCE Aurangabad - 2003 (157) ELT 34 (Tri-Mumbai) f) CCE Bangalore vs. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd.- 2005 (183) ELT 334 (Tri-Bang) g) N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant has not been able to establish that the same has not been recovered from the customers. In support of his submissions, he cited the following judgements: a) Tata Motors Ltd. vs. CC(Imports), Mumbai - 2014 (308) ELT 559 (Tri-Mumbai) b) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2015 (317) ELT 379 (Tri-Mumbai) 5. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The only point for consideration before us is that whether the charges towards training provided to the customer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hown in the invoices wherever charged and recovered. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the activity of training has no nexus with the activity of manufacturing, sale or marketing of the product and the same does not enrich the product has force. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PSI Data Systems Ltd. (supra) held that the charges for installation of computers and training of customer's personnel to operate and maintain it was not includable in the assessable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version