Manufacturer wins appeal after correctly splitting contract into 70% goods and 30% services for tax purposes

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal in a valuation dispute where the appellant divided a contract into 70% goods and 30% services, paying excise duty only on the goods portion. The tribunal held that the 30% balance amount constituted services requiring service tax, not enhanced excise duty on goods value. The revenue incorrectly treated this as a valuation case rather than demanding service tax. Since goods weren't supplied to appellant's own unit, CAS-4 valuation wasn't applicable. The extended period demand was unsustainable as the registered manufacturer filed monthly returns showing adopted values, with no scrutiny by range officials. Both confirmed demand and penalties on the company and director were set aside.

---

---

Issues:
- Assessment of excise duty on 30% balance amount in a contract for supply and installation of goods.
- Whether the balance 30% amount should be added to the assessable value for excise duty.
- Whether the balance 30% amount constitutes a service portion.
- Application of extended period provisions for demand confirmation.
- Compliance with CAS-4 valuation method.
- Imposition of penalty on the Director.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, entered into a contract with a construction company for the supply and installation of goods. The dispute arose when the Revenue claimed excise duty on the balance 30% amount not included in the assessable value for the goods supplied.

2. The Appellant argued that the balance 30% amount was for service portion related to installation and not material supply. They contended that no excise duty was required on this portion as it was not for material supply but for service provided.

3. The Appellant further argued that the goods installed at the site became part of the immovable property, making the additional charges received not part of the assessable value for material supply.

4. The Appellant claimed that they were a registered manufacturer filing their returns regularly, and the Revenue erred in invoking extended period provisions for demand confirmation, as the Department was aware of their activities.

5. The Department contended that the entire contract value included excise duty and that the Appellant deliberately divided the contract to avoid paying excise duty on the balance 30% amount, which they deemed as part of material supply.

6. The Tribunal analyzed the contract details and found that the contract involved both material supply and services. It held that the balance 30% amount should be considered a service portion for which Service Tax should have been demanded, not excise duty on manufactured goods.

7. The Tribunal ruled that the confirmed demands were not sustainable on merits and set aside the demand and penalty on the Appellant company.

8. Regarding the time bar issue, the Tribunal noted that the Show Cause Notice was issued within one year from the date of Audit, but as the Appellants were filing returns regularly, the extended period demand was set aside due to lack of indication that the self-assessed returns were scrutinized.

9. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Director, as the confirmed demand was not sustainable against the Appellant company.

10. The Appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law, and the penalty on the Director was also set aside.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the ultimate decision reached on each issue involved in the case.

---