TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether training charges separately shown in the invoice were includible in the assessable value for central excise duty under Notification No. 120/75 dated 30-4-1975.
Analysis: The notification exempted duty in excess of that calculated on the basis of the invoice price charged by the manufacturer for sale of the goods, excluding duty and local taxes. The mere fact that training charges were mentioned in the invoice did not make them part of the invoice price. The decisive question was whether any part of the sale price had been suppressed and recovered under the guise of training charges. Since the Department did not allege or establish such suppression, the training charges, being charges for future training services, could not be treated as part of the price charged for the goods.
Conclusion: The training charges were not includible in the assessable value and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand based on inclusion of separately billed training charges in the assessable value could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Separately billed post-sale service charges are not part of the invoice price for excise valuation unless the Department proves that a portion of the sale price was suppressed and recovered under another label.
TaxTMI 
