Inclusion of Battery Cost in UPS Value Upheld by Tribunal; Essential for Continuous Power Supply

The Tribunal ruled that the cost of a battery supplied with an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) should be included in the assessable value of the UPS. The appellant's argument that the battery is optional for UPS functioning was rejected, with the Tribunal emphasizing the essential role of the battery in ensuring continuous power supply during main power breakdowns. The Tribunal found that for UPS providing uninterrupted power supply, the battery is integral, based on established precedents. The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal concluding that the battery is essential for UPS operation and should be considered in the assessable value.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issue in this case revolves around whether the cost of a battery supplied with an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) should be included in the assessable value of the UPS.

Summary:
The appellant manufactures UPS, which may or may not require a battery depending on the nature of its use. The dispute arises from cases where the UPS was supplied with a battery, and whether the cost of the battery should be part of the assessable value. The appellant's advocate acknowledges unfavorable precedents but argues for a larger bench referral based on conflicting Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Electronics and Controls established that a battery is integral for UPS providing uninterrupted power supply. The appellant contends that the battery is optional and not essential for UPS functioning, citing other Tribunal decisions. However, the Tribunal finds that for UPS providing uninterrupted power supply, the battery is essential and integral, as upheld in previous cases.

The distinction between a static converter and a UPS is crucial, with the latter requiring a battery for uninterrupted power supply during main power breakdowns. The Tribunal rejects the appellant's argument that the battery is optional, emphasizing its essential role in ensuring continuous power supply. The Tribunal also dismisses the argument that the battery's exclusion is justified based on it not being cleared with the UPS, as the battery is essential for UPS functioning and supplied as part of the same contract. Ultimately, the Tribunal sees no grounds for interference and dismisses the appeal.

---