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 in Favor of Appellants on Assessable Value Disputes</h1> <h3>KERALA STATE ELECTRONIC DEV. CORPN. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., TRIVANDRUM</h3> KERALA STATE ELECTRONIC DEV. CORPN. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., TRIVANDRUM - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 88 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Inclusion of erection/installation and commissioning charges in the assessable value of electronic equipment.2. Inclusion of the value of bought out items in the assessable value of Attendance Data Management Systems (ADAMS).Analysis:Issue 1:The first appeal (Appeal No. 371/06) involved the question of whether erection/installation and commissioning charges should be included in the assessable value of Intelligence Data Capturing Unit (IDCU). The Original Authority demanded duty, interest, and penalty, which the appellants contested by citing various legal decisions. The Tribunal noted that it is established that such charges are not part of the assessable value of machinery supplied. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between the sale value of goods and charges for erection and commissioning. As these charges are not part of the transaction value, the demand for duty on erection charges was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief if any.Issue 2:The second appeal (Appeal No. E/372/06) dealt with the inclusion of the value of bought out items in the assessable value of ADAMS. The Revenue sought duty, interest, and penalty for including items like uncoated cards and cables in the assessable value. The Tribunal observed that these bought out items, although necessary for the system's function, had excise duty already paid on them. Therefore, there was no justification for adding their value to the goods supplied by the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty should be imposed, and there was no basis for invoking the longer period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.In both cases, the Tribunal provided a detailed analysis based on legal principles and precedents, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants by setting aside the demands made by the Revenue authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
