Tribunal ruling on assessable value for air-conditioning and UPS equipment

The Tribunal held that installation and commissioning charges and the cost of bought-out items should not be included in the assessable value of air-conditioning equipment and UPS systems. The inclusion of freight charges was upheld, while the appeal regarding notional interest on advances was dismissed due to lack of evidence. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, excluding certain charges from the assessable value, while the Revenue's appeal was dismissed for failure to establish the necessary nexus for including interest on advances.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the inclusion of installation and commissioning charges, cost of bought-out items, interest on advances, and freight and insurance in the assessable value of air-conditioning equipment and UPS systems.

Installation and Commissioning Charges:
The Tribunal held that installation and commissioning charges cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods in dispute, citing a previous case and a CBEC circular clarifying the interpretation of the relevant section.

Bought-Out Items:
The duty demand on bought-out items, such as floor grills, piping, and cabling, was found to be not includable in the assessable value as they are not parts of the air-conditioning machines but items required purely at the site.

Freight Charges:
The inclusion of freight charges was upheld as the appellants did not contest it, and therefore, this inclusion was deemed appropriate.

Interest on Advances:
The appeal of the Revenue regarding the inclusion of notional interest on advances was dismissed due to the lack of evidence establishing a nexus between the interest and the price charged, as required by legal precedents cited in the judgment.

In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with installation and commissioning charges and the cost of bought-out items not being included in the assessable value. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed due to the absence of evidence establishing the nexus for including notional interest on advances.

---