Erection and commissioning charges separately shown after manufacture were excluded from excise assessable value.

Erection and commissioning charges incurred after manufacture and delivery were treated as post-manufacturing expenses and, on the stated facts, were not part of the assessable value for excise duty. The contract and invoices separately showed those charges, and the record did not establish any camouflage or diversion of the true price of the goods into service charges. On that basis, the charges were held not includible in assessable value, and the demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether erection, commissioning and service charges formed part of the assessable value for excise duty.

Analysis: The disputed charges related to erection and commissioning undertaken after manufacture and delivery arrangement. The contract and invoices showed that erection and commissioning charges were separately indicated, and the record did not establish any camouflage or diversion of the true price of the goods to service charges. Post-manufacturing expenses cannot be included in the assessable value for duty.

Conclusion: The erection and commissioning charges were not includible in the assessable value, and the demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained.

---