Appellate Tribunal rules charges for design & testing not included in assessable value

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled that charges for design, fabrication, erection, testing, and technical supervision at the buyers' site should not be included in the assessable value of goods cleared by the appellants. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's decision and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order that demanded duty and imposed a penalty.

---

---

Issues involved: The inclusion of charges towards design, fabrication, erection, testing, and technical supervision at the buyers' site in the assessable value of goods cleared from the factory.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the issue of whether charges for design, fabrication, erection, testing, and technical supervision at the buyers' site should be included in the assessable value of goods cleared by the appellants. The appellants had received purchase orders for supplying equipment and parts of a plant, along with installation and commissioning at the site. The Central Excise authorities contended that charges for these services should be added to the assessable value of the goods cleared from the factory. Several Show Cause Notices were issued, resulting in a demand for duty and imposition of a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

Upon reviewing the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the department sought to enhance the assessable value of components cleared from the factory by including charges for erection and testing at the buyers' site. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's observation that the goods erected at the site could be dismantled, emphasizing that the duty should be assessed based on the form in which the goods are cleared. The Tribunal concluded that charges for fabrication, erection, and technical supervision at the site should not be part of the assessable value. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.

---