Assessable value excludes post-removal site charges; penalty fails without recorded reasons.

Erection charges, supervision over erection and commissioning charges, and design and engineering charges incurred for post-removal, site-related activities were held outside assessable value under section 4 because only charges connected with manufacture or marketability up to removal from the factory gate are includible. The deductions were therefore admissible. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also unsustainable because the penalty order contained no supporting finding or recorded justification for penal action. The assessment was reduced by excluding the disputed charges and the penalty was annulled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether erection charges, supervision over erection and commissioning charges, and design and engineering charges were includible in the assessable value under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether erection charges, supervision over erection and commissioning charges, and design and engineering charges were includible in the assessable value under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Only charges connected with manufacture or with marketability up to the stage of removal from the factory gate can form part of assessable value. Charges attributable to activities undertaken after removal from the factory, or to services not linked with manufacture or marketability, are outside the assessable value. Erection at the customer's site, supervision of erection and commissioning, and the design and engineering services described in the contract were all found to be post-removal or project/site-related charges without nexus to manufacture of the goods.

Conclusion: The charges were not includible in the assessable value and the deductions were admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable.

Analysis: The penalty order contained no supporting finding or justification for penal action. In the absence of recorded reasons showing why penalty was warranted, the penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was reduced by exclusion of the disputed post-removal charges and the penalty was annulled, resulting in allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Charges are includible in assessable value only if they are connected with manufacture or marketability up to the time of removal from the factory gate; post-removal site-related service charges are not includible, and penalty cannot stand without supporting findings.

---