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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the dispute regarding exclusion from assessable value of feasibility charges, system analysis or designing charges, and service charges required remand for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The order noted that consultancy and demonstration charges had already been excluded, while feasibility, system analysis or designing, and service charges were treated as similar in nature. It further observed that the reasoning for excluding some similar charges while not excluding others was not clearly explained. The plea that feasibility charges were optional was also not examined on merits, and the nexus of the disputed charges with design or marketability was not properly considered in light of the applicable case law.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration of the three disputed items and for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim.
Final Conclusion: No final determination was made on the excludibility of the disputed charges, and the assessment issue was sent back for fresh adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: Where material charges affecting assessable value have not been examined on the correct factual and legal basis, including optionality and nexus with design or marketability, a fresh adjudication is required.