Post-clearance erection and supervision charges are excluded from assessable value when recovered under separate contracts.

Charges for post-clearance erection, commissioning and supervision recovered under separate contracts are not part of the assessable value of excisable goods because they relate to activities after manufacture and clearance. On that principle, supervision charges linked to such post-clearance work are equally excludible. The inclusion of these charges in assessable value was therefore unsustainable, and the demand based on that inclusion could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether supervision, erection, commissioning and similar post-clearance charges collected under separate contracts are includible in the assessable value of the goods.

Analysis: The charges recovered were for post-clearance activities and were linked to separate contracts for supervision of erection and commissioning. The governing principle applied was that erection and commissioning charges, being attributable to post-manufacture or post-clearance activities, do not form part of the assessable value of the excisable goods. On the same reasoning, charges for supervising such erection and commissioning also cannot be treated as part of the assessable value.

Conclusion: The impugned inclusion of supervision, erection and commissioning charges in the assessable value was unsustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand based on inclusion of the disputed post-clearance charges could not be sustained, and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Charges for post-clearance erection, commissioning and supervision under separate contracts are not includible in the assessable value of excisable goods.

---