Composite works contracts require excise valuation to exclude labour and service elements; unresolved manufacture issues need fresh adjudication.

Site assembly and fabrication of air-conditioning and refrigeration units in execution of composite works contracts raised unresolved factual questions on whether the activity amounted to manufacture in a factory for central excise purposes, so the matter required fresh examination rather than a final finding. For valuation, the document states that where duty is otherwise attracted, the assessable value cannot be taken at the gross contract price and must exclude labour, service and other legally permissible deductions, including freight where admissible. Because the original record was incomplete and the deductions were not properly examined, the adjudication was set aside and the matter remitted for de novo consideration after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether assembly and fabrication of air-conditioning and refrigeration units at site, out of parts manufactured partly in-house and partly procured, amounted to manufacture in a factory for central excise purposes. (ii) How the assessable value of goods supplied under composite works contracts was to be determined, including the treatment of labour, service and other deductible elements.

Issue (i): Whether assembly and fabrication of air-conditioning and refrigeration units at site, out of parts manufactured partly in-house and partly procured, amounted to manufacture in a factory for central excise purposes.

Analysis: The disputed activity involved site assembly, welding, cutting, bolting and related preparatory steps in execution of works contracts. The record before the adjudicating authority was found incomplete, since affidavits filed before the Tribunal were not before the original authority and the factual questions about the manner in which the units came into existence had not been fully examined. The Tribunal also noted that the annual reports showed production of several identified units, creating a factual issue that required detailed re-examination. In that state of the record, a categorical finding on manufacture and factory could not safely be recorded.

Conclusion: The issue was not finally determined on merits and was left for fresh adjudication.

Issue (ii): How the assessable value of goods supplied under composite works contracts was to be determined, including the treatment of labour, service and other deductible elements.

Analysis: The contracts were composite in nature and included design, fabrication, supply, erection, commissioning and other services. The Tribunal held that, if duty was otherwise attracted, the correct assessable value could not be taken as the gross contract value and had to be worked out after excluding labour and other service elements, together with other permissible deductions such as freight where legally admissible. The original order was also found deficient because the discrepancies in the show cause notice and the claimed deductions had not been examined in detail, and the matter required a speaking reappraisal in accordance with natural justice.

Conclusion: The valuation question was remitted for reconsideration and reassessment.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order was set aside and the matter was sent back for de novo consideration after hearing the appellant and examining the factual and valuation issues afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: In a composite works-contract situation, excise valuation must exclude labour and service components and other legally permissible deductions, and unresolved factual questions bearing on manufacture and assessability require fresh adjudication before duty can be sustained.

---