TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the amounts collected under the head of installation and training charges were includible in the assessable value for excise duty; (ii) Whether mandatory penalty could be imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for a period prior to its introduction.
Issue (i): Whether the amounts collected under the head of installation and training charges were includible in the assessable value for excise duty.
Analysis: The materials showed that the assessee raised separate invoices for the so-called installation and training charges on the same day as the sale invoices. The evidence recorded that the customers had not received any separate installation or training service from the assessee and that such installation work was in fact done by dealers. On these facts, the additional amounts were treated as part of the sale consideration and not as charges for independent services.
Conclusion: The inclusion of the service and installation amounts in the assessable value was upheld against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether mandatory penalty could be imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for a period prior to its introduction.
Analysis: The demand related to the period 1992-93, 1993-94 and part of 1995, whereas section 11AC came into force only on 28-09-1996. As the provision was not in existence during the relevant period, mandatory penalty under that section could not be sustained. The matter required re-determination of penalty only with reference to rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after affording an opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 11AC was set aside and the penalty issue was remanded for fresh adjudication under rule 173Q.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand was sustained, but the penalty portion was reopened for fresh consideration under the correct statutory provision.
Ratio Decidendi: Amounts collected as installation or training charges are includible in assessable value when no independent service is actually rendered and the amounts represent additional consideration; a penalty provision cannot be applied retrospectively to a period prior to its commencement.
TaxTMI 
