https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173540 Under a divisible contract, service-related activities could not be merged into the assessable value for central excise duty where goods and services were separately identifiable. The contract involved distinct supply of goods and service elements, and the record showed that only a minor portion of the goods was manufactured by the appellant, while most goods were imported. Documentation, installation and check-out, training, amortization of tools and testing equipment, and system integration were treated as service components falling within a separate service-tax regime. Accordingly, those service components were not liable to excise duty and could not be added to the value of the goods. en-us Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:01:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173540 Under a divisible contract, service-related activities could not be merged into the assessable value for central excise duty where goods and services were separately identifiable. The contract involved distinct supply of goods and service elements, and the record showed that only a minor portion of the goods was manufactured by the appellant, while most goods were imported. Documentation, installation and check-out, training, amortization of tools and testing equipment, and system integration were treated as service components falling within a separate service-tax regime. Accordingly, those service components were not liable to excise duty and could not be added to the value of the goods. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173540