Tribunal excludes erection charges from excise duty calculation, clarifies post-clearance activities.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that charges for erection and commissioning should not be included in the assessable value for central excise duty calculation. The judgment emphasized the distinction between sale value and post-clearance activities, citing a Supreme Court decision to support its findings. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

---

---

Issues involved: Whether amount charged as erection and commission charge over and above the sale price shown in central excise invoice is includable in the assessable value.

The judgment addresses the issue of whether an additional amount charged as erection and commission charge should be included in the assessable value for central excise duty calculation. The appellant, a machinery supplier, invoiced customers for machinery along with a separate charge for erection during a specific period. The revenue argued that such charges should be included in the assessable value. However, referencing a previous case, the Tribunal found that charges for erection and commissioning are not related to the sale of goods but are distinct activities. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision supporting this view, stating that post-clearance activities like installation cannot be included in the assessable value. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The judgment provides a clear interpretation of the law regarding the inclusion of additional charges in the assessable value for central excise duty calculation, emphasizing the distinction between sale value and post-clearance activities like erection and commissioning.

---