TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged by the department as erection and installation charges - strictly following the interpretation of definition “ transaction value” in Section 4 (3) (d) ibid., additions on the alleged score of erection / installation cannot be sustained. Board’s clarification cannot override a legal provision of the statute. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/125/2009 - FINAL ORDER No.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty was ordered. Appeal filed to Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected vide impugned order dt. 30.09.2008. Hence appellants are before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, ld. Advocate Shri T. Ramesh submits that department has extrapolated the amount of ₹ 9000/- shown in a single invoice dt. 20.12.2005 issued to M/s.Diesel Power Technology, Bangalore and applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des and gone through the facts. In the normal course, the transaction value between the manufacturer and buyer is required to be adopted and accepted as assessable value for the purpose of levy and discharge of Central Excise duty, unless, there are justifiable reasons not to accept the same. 4.2 The definition of transaction value is found in Section 4 (3) (d) of the Central Excise Act, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or evidence put forth that the buyers were liable to pay to, or on behalf of assessee, by reason of, or in connection with the sale, the purported amounts alleged by the department as erection and installation charges. It is not the case of the department that appellants were in fact charging the said amount from each of their customers in the invoices or for that matter, collecting it from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged score of erection / installation cannot be sustained. Although ld. A.R has relied upon the clarification to the contrary given in the Board's circular dt. 1.7.2002, we are of the considered opinion that Board s clarification cannot override a legal provision of the statute. This view is supported by a host of appellate decisions of higher appellate bodies. 5. In the event, we set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
