TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Order Setting Aside Demands, Interest & Penalties</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI Versus ASHIDA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI Versus ASHIDA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. - 2011 (272) E.L.T. 305 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Appeal against order-in-appeal confirming demand, interest, and penalty- Inclusion of erection and commissioning charges in assessable value- Inclusion of value of bought out items in assessable value- Interpretation of Board's Circular on assessable value- Allegation of deliberate suppression of facts and penalty on Director- Classification of SCADA system under Chapter sub-heading 8537- Contention regarding accessories not being integral part of goods- Assessment of charges for erection and commissioning at customer's site- Assessment of value of accessories supplied to customersAnalysis:The appeal pertains to the Revenue challenging an order-in-appeal setting aside the demand, interest, and penalty imposed on the respondent and its Director. The main issue revolves around whether erection and commissioning charges, along with the value of bought out items, should be included in the assessable value of the products supplied by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the respondent, citing Board's Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX. The Revenue contended that the SCADA system emerging at the customer's site falls under Chapter sub-heading 8537, justifying the inclusion of charges and values in the assessable amount.Regarding the inclusion of erection and commissioning charges, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that such charges need not be added to the assessable value based on the Board's Circular. The department argued that if charges are incurred to bring excisable goods into existence, they should be included. However, the Tribunal found that the department's case focused on charges for installation, not completion of the product, leading to the dismissal of the inclusion of such charges.On the matter of including the value of accessories in the assessable value, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence from the Revenue to establish that the accessories were integral to the goods supplied by the respondent. As a result, the impugned order-in-appeal was upheld, dismissing the appeals for lacking merit. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that goods should be assessed at the stage of removal and when payment is connected to the sale, highlighting the necessity of bought out items for the main article to function.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, as the department failed to prove the essentiality of including erection and commissioning charges and accessory values in the assessable amount. The appeals were deemed devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
