2017 (1) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Decision on LPG Bullets Appeal, Assessable Value, Time Bar Defense

M/s Phils Engg. Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the manufacturing and clearance of LPG Bullets, assessable value determination, and the recurring nature of ... Valuation - amount on account of spot fabrication for all LPG Bullets should from part of assessable value or not? - time bar - Held that: - the entire demand has been dropped by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation even though some observation was given by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) on the merits of the case but the demand does not survive and same stand dropped. Since the issue is not of recurring nature there is no consequential adverse effect of the observation given by the lower authorities on appellant. We are therefore the view that observation on merits which was challenged by the appellant will not prejudice the appellant. We therefore do not need to address the merits of the case - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues involved:Manufacturing and clearance of LPG Bullets, additional charges for erection and installation, assessable value determination, time bar defense, recurring nature of the issue.Manufacturing and Clearance of LPG Bullets:The case involved the appellant manufacturing LPG Bullets and carrying out erection and installation at the customer's site for an additional charge. The Revenue contended that fabrication was done partly at the factory and partly at the customer's site. The appellant argued that the LPG Bullets were entirely manufactured at their factory and only civil work and welding were done at the site. The issue revolved around whether activities at the customer's site constituted manufacturing and were liable for duty.Assessable Value Determination:The adjudicating authority dropped the demand on the ground of time bar but expressed the view that the amount for spot fabrication should be included in the assessable value of all LPG Bullets. The appellant appealed this decision, citing settled cases to argue that post-clearance charges for installation, erection, and commissioning at the buyer's place should not be part of the assessable value.Recurring Nature of the Issue:The appellant contended that the issue was not of a recurring nature, and therefore, the observations made by the lower authorities on the merits of the case should not prejudice them. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that since the demand did not survive due to the time bar defense, there was no need to address the merits of the case. The appeal was dismissed without expressing any views on the merits.This judgment dealt with the manufacturing and clearance of LPG Bullets, the determination of assessable value, and the recurring nature of the issue. The appellant argued that the LPG Bullets were entirely manufactured at their factory, and activities at the customer's site were not part of the manufacturing process. The Revenue contended otherwise, leading to a dispute over the assessable value. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order based on the time bar defense, stating that the issue was not of a recurring nature and, therefore, the observations on merits would not prejudice the appellant. The appeal was dismissed without addressing the merits of the case, maintaining the decision on the assessable value and the time bar defense.