https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3866 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in both appeals. In the first appeal, it was held that erection/installation and commissioning charges should not be included in the assessable value of the Intelligence Data Capturing Unit (IDCU). The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between the sale value of goods and charges for erection and commissioning. In the second appeal concerning the Attendance Data Management Systems (ADAMS), the Tribunal determined that the value of bought out items should not be included in the assessable value. Consequently, the demands for duty, interest, and penalty by the Revenue authorities were set aside in both cases. en-us Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3866 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in both appeals. In the first appeal, it was held that erection/installation and commissioning charges should not be included in the assessable value of the Intelligence Data Capturing Unit (IDCU). The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between the sale value of goods and charges for erection and commissioning. In the second appeal concerning the Attendance Data Management Systems (ADAMS), the Tribunal determined that the value of bought out items should not be included in the assessable value. Consequently, the demands for duty, interest, and penalty by the Revenue authorities were set aside in both cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3866