Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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 excess amounts collected towards erection and commissioning charges could be added to the assessable value of the manufactured goods, and whether the demand raised under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable.
Analysis: The notice alleged only that the receipts from customers exceeded the actual expenditure incurred and that such excess was wilfully suppressed. It did not allege that any part of the sale price of the gas turbine had been shifted to the erection and commissioning charges so as to constitute extra consideration for the manufactured goods. In the absence of such a specific allegation, the department could not advance that case at the appellate stage. The profit earned on erection and commissioning work, by itself, could not be treated as part of the price of the manufactured product without more.
Conclusion: The addition of any part of the erection and commissioning charges to the assessable value was not justified. The assessee succeeded and the departmental appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the department's appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: An amount collected for separate erection and commissioning work cannot be included in the assessable value of manufactured goods unless the show cause notice specifically alleges and the department establishes that such amount represents shifted sale consideration or extra consideration for the goods.