TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, form part of the assessable value of the machinery and equipment - this component should have been added to the assessable value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - E/592/2006 - A/85362/17/EB - Dated:- 16-1-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri S V Nair, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the appellant None for the respondent Per: C J Mathew: Revenue is in appeal against order-in-appeal no. SVS/456/NGP-C/2005 dated 30 th November 2005 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur which has set aside the confirmation of duty of ₹ 10,68,000/- under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest thereon, and the penalty of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities are relating to pre-fabrication, engineering and design stage. It is on the basis of this designing that the appellant is fabricating various equipments, instruments, pipings, insulations, etc. The expenditure on such activities would, therefore, form part of the assessable value of the machinery and equipment manufactured by appellant No. 1. In fact without these engineering drawings, it was not possible for appellant No. 1 to fabricate and manufacture the equipments which they have supplied. We also note that in some cases there are some activities which may not be necessary at the manufacturing stage. However, since no separate amount has been indicated for such post-manufacturing activities, the entire amount is required to be add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct. As far as penalty under Rule 173Q on appellant No. 1 is concerned, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that some of the activities are post-manufacturing activity for which separate amounts are not available, in our view, the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q is on the higher side and we reduce the same to ₹ 1,00,000/-. Similarly, the penalty imposed on appellant No. 2 under Rule 209A is also on the higher side and the same is reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/-. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant No. 2 that they have not dealt with the goods is rejected as they were instrumental in the designing as well as ensuring the proper functioning and running of the equipment and they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
