Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 570 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (3) TMI 570 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Computation of assessable value - exclusion/ inclusion of installation/erection/commissioning charges at site of the customer - Held that:- The appellant have raised two invoices one is towards sale of the machines and second for integration and commissioning of the machines supplied to the customers. Integration and commissioning is an independent activity which can be performed either by the appellant or any out side agency, charges recovered towards in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e case that value charged for the integration and commissioning is over valued therefore the amount charged for intimation and commissioning has to be accepted for the activity carried out by the appellant at site of the customers. This Tribunal in various judgments time and again held that installation/erection/commissioning charges at site of the customer is not includible in the assessable value. SEE Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh Vs. Khosla Machines Pvt. Ltd [2014 (3) TMI 375 - CESTAT NEW .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri. M.R. Nadkarni, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent(A.R.) ORDER PER : RAMESH NAIR This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. GOA/CEX/SNS/04/2005 dtd. 12/9/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise(Appeals), Panaji, Goa wherein appeal filed by the appellant was rejected. 2. The fact of the case is that appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Vival Washing Machine .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g Machine, Sterlization Tunnel etc and vide their commercial invoice No. 20 dated 27/3/2002 they have recovered ₹ 3,80,000/- from M/s. Pastaur Institute of India, Coonoor as integration and commissioning. A show cause notice was issued proposing demand of ₹ 1,56,800/- interest and penalty which was adjudicated and demand of duty and equal penalty and interest was confirmed. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal, 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

s premises, the activities of carrying out the installation, erection at site of the customers it become immovable property and therefore it is not excisable, any amount recovered towards non excisable activity can not be formed part of the assessable value of the excisable machines cleared from the factory. 4. Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the findings of the impugned order submits that as per the definition of transaction value in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmr. of C. Ex., Vapi Vs. Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt Ltd [2009(14) S.T.R. 305(Tri. Ahmd.)] (b) Commr. of Cus. & C.Ex. Aurangabad Vs. Roofit Industries Ltd[2015(319) ELT 221(S.C.)] 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. We find that the appellant have raised two invoices one is towards sale of the machines and second for integration and commissioning of the machines supplied to the customers. Integration and commissioning is an independent activity which can .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng charges appellant have suppressed the sale value of the machines, but it is also not the case that value charged for the integration and commissioning is over valued therefore the amount charged for intimation and commissioning has to be accepted for the activity carried out by the appellant at site of the customers. This Tribunal in the following judgments time and again held that installation/erection/commissioning charges at site of the customer is not includible in the assessable value. S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r buyer and are in no way connected with the value of the goods manufactured by them. The said charges are subsequent to the clearance of the goods and has no nexus with the assessable value of the goods. We are of the view the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly allowed the respondents appeal and no infirmity can be found therein. We accordingly reject the Revenues appeal. (b) Erricsson India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I[2013(294) ELT 599(Tri. Del.)] 3. We find favour with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e value of the goods. In any case, the appellant has already discharged their service tax liability in respect of the said consideration, in which case the same cannot be taxed to Central Excise duty. 4. We, in view of the foregoing discussions, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (c) Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd[2013(293) ELT319(Tri. Mumbai)] 4. We find that the respondent entered into two differen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ommissiner of C. Ex. Mumbai-III[2012277)ELT 269(Tri. Mumbai)] 8. In the light of the above decision and the facts of the case involved, we find that the demand of the Department for inclusion of travelling expenses from the factory to the customers site for erection and installation work cannot form the part of the transaction value under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and, therefore, excise duty demand on such value is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we allow the appeal with conseq .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sformer manufactured by them. The Revenue filed this Appeal on the ground that outward handling charges and charges for proper placement of transformer on the plinth are includible in the assessable/transaction value as per the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act. We find that in the sale contract under the column price mentioned that extra charges for placement of transformer on the plinth is ₹ 15, 000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per unit whenever applicable meaning 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

hmd.)] 4. Tribunal in case of M/s. Rhino Machines (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara, 2005 (181) E.L.T. 63 (Tri.-Mumbai), has held that the goods to be assessed in the form in which cleared from the factory and subsequent activities of fabrication, erection and technical supervision charges at site will not form a part of the assessable value of the goods cleared from the factory. To the similar effect are the other decisions relied upon by the appellant. Tribunal in case of M/s. Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ief to the appellants. (g) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Kanpur[ 2008(230) ELT 187(Tri. Del)] 6.We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. The charges recovered by the appellant from their customers are for post clearance activities. Admittedly, it was based on separate contracts with their customers for supervision of erection and commissioning of machinery. In the case cited above by the learned Advocate the issue relating to inclusion of i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellants. Or, to put it differently, whether the installation and commissioning charges are eligible to excise duty? This controversy stands concluded by two decisions of this Court. 12. In coming to this conclusion, reliance was placed on an earlier decision of this Court in Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.) = (1995) 2 SCC 372, in which also it was held that erection and installation charges cannot be included in the assessable value of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version