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 Rules on Inclusion of Charges in Assessable Value: Precedent Set for Post-Manufacturing Activities</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur Versus Alstom Projects India Ltd</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur Versus Alstom Projects India Ltd - TMI Issues:- Appeal against order setting aside confirmation of duty under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944- Inclusion of 'erection, commissioning and installation charges' in assessable value- Interpretation of post-manufacturing activities in determining assessable value- Reliance on circular and tribunal decision for clarification- Precedent set by Tribunal in similar circumstances- Reduction of penalties imposed under various rulesAnalysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order setting aside the confirmation of duty under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest and penalty, by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur. The dispute revolves around the non-inclusion of 'erection, commissioning and installation charges' in the assessable value of 'duct and duct support structures' supplied by a company between May 2003 and December 2003. The appellant was accused of not incorporating the costs of drawings and designs in the assessable value, which were prepared before production commenced.The appellate authority disagreed with the original authority's justification, stating that the post-manufacturing activities were not relevant to determining the assessable value. The Learned Authorized Representative cited a circular and a Tribunal decision in support of their argument. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of engineering drawings in the fabrication process, emphasizing that such activities should be considered in the assessable value. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of adding the component to the assessable value, overturning the previous order and allowing the appeal.In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of including certain charges in the assessable value, particularly those related to pre-fabrication and engineering activities. It establishes a precedent based on the interpretation of post-manufacturing activities and emphasizes the relevance of engineering designs in determining the assessable value. Moreover, the judgment addresses the reduction of penalties imposed under various rules, indicating a nuanced approach to penalty assessment based on the specific circumstances of each case.
TaxTMI 