Assessable value exclusions for installation charges and bought-out materials, while confiscation was upheld for licensing non-compliance.

Separately recovered installation charges for post-manufacturing work were held not includible in assessable value because they were shown distinctly in invoices and related to work done at the customer's premises. The value of glass panels bought from the market and supplied with doors and windows was also excluded, as adding it again would amount to double taxation. Confiscation of the goods was upheld on the basis of licensing and procedural non-compliance in the excisable manufacturing context, but the personal penalty was set aside for want of supporting facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether installation charges separately realised for post-manufacturing installation work were includible in the assessable value of the goods; (ii) whether the value of glass panels purchased from the market and supplied along with the doors and windows was includible in the assessable value; (iii) whether confiscation of the goods and the personal penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether installation charges separately realised for post-manufacturing installation work were includible in the assessable value of the goods.

Analysis: The charges were shown separately in invoices and varied according to the nature and extent of installation work done at the customer's premises. They were post-manufacturing expenses and were not built into the price of the goods. Essentiality of installation for sale did not by itself justify inclusion in assessable value when the amount was separately recovered.

Conclusion: The installation charges were not liable to be added to the assessable value.

Issue (ii): Whether the value of glass panels purchased from the market and supplied along with the doors and windows was includible in the assessable value.

Analysis: The glass panels were purchased from the market and were therefore treated as duty paid. Inclusion of their value again in the assessable value would amount to double taxation, which was not permissible.

Conclusion: The value of the market-purchased glass panels was not liable to be included in the assessable value.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation of the goods and the personal penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were found in the factory when the appellants were required to hold a Central Excise licence and comply with the relevant procedural requirements. On that footing, confiscation was justified. However, the facts did not warrant imposition of a personal penalty.

Conclusion: The confiscation and redemption fine were upheld, but the personal penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the valuation questions and failed on confiscation, while the personal penalty was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts separately recovered for post-manufacturing services and the value of duty-paid bought-out materials are not includible in assessable value, while confiscation may be sustained for non-compliance with licensing requirements in an excisable manufacturing activity.

---