Divisible contract valuation: service components cannot be added to excisable value when goods and services are separately identifiable.

Under a divisible contract, service-related activities could not be merged into the assessable value for central excise duty where goods and services were separately identifiable. The contract involved distinct supply of goods and service elements, and the record showed that only a minor portion of the goods was manufactured by the appellant, while most goods were imported. Documentation, installation and check-out, training, amortization of tools and testing equipment, and system integration were treated as service components falling within a separate service-tax regime. Accordingly, those service components were not liable to excise duty and could not be added to the value of the goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether the value of service-related activities under a divisible contract could be included in the assessable value for levy of central excise duty, and whether such service components were liable to be taxed under excise law.

Analysis: The contract was found to be divisible, with supply of goods distinct from the services rendered. The record showed that the major portion of the goods was imported, while only a minor component manufactured by the appellant had suffered excise duty. The disputed items such as documentation, installation and check-out, training, amortization of tools and testing equipment, and system integration were treated as service elements, separately relatable to service taxation. Since goods and services are taxed under separate fiscal regimes, service elements could not be brought into the excisable assessable value by indirect inclusion under the Central Excise Act.

Conclusion: The service components were not liable to excise duty and could not be added to the assessable value of the goods.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the demand based on inclusion of service elements in excise valuation was set aside.

---