Tribunal rules trial charges not mandatory for assessable value, overturns order.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order to add trial charges to the assessable value of goods manufactured by the appellant. It ruled that trials were optional at customers' request and not a prerequisite for sales, highlighting that some customers requested trials but did not place orders, while orders were sometimes made without trials. The Tribunal found no evidence of manipulation in the assessable value through trial charges, leading to the conclusion that the demand to include trial charges in the assessable value was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding addition of trial charges to assessable value of goods manufactured.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Chemical Process Equipments, appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the addition of trial charges to the assessable value of goods. The customers sometimes requested trials before placing orders, for which the appellant charged trial amounts. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, but the appellant contended that trials were not a condition precedent to sales, as some customers did not order even after trials, while in other cases, orders were placed without trials. The Revenue argued that since trial charges were related to the manufactured goods, they should be added to the assessable value.

The Tribunal found that trials were optional at the customers' request and not a prerequisite for sales. Some customers requested trials but did not place orders, while in other cases, orders were made without trials. The Tribunal noted that there was no indication of the appellant manipulating the assessable value under the guise of trial charges. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand to add trial charges to the assessable value was not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment emphasized that the trial of equipment was not a mandatory condition for sales, especially when customers sometimes placed orders without trials, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's contention and the appellant's success in the appeal.

---