https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333283 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal that alleged undervaluation of goods for central excise duty due to separate billing for installation charges. It was determined that the installation charges were post-manufacturing expenses not included in the assessable value, in line with legal precedents. As there was no evidence of undervaluation and no difference in assessable value between sold and installed goods, the revenue's demand for central excise duty on installation charges was dismissed. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant. en-us Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333283 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal that alleged undervaluation of goods for central excise duty due to separate billing for installation charges. It was determined that the installation charges were post-manufacturing expenses not included in the assessable value, in line with legal precedents. As there was no evidence of undervaluation and no difference in assessable value between sold and installed goods, the revenue's demand for central excise duty on installation charges was dismissed. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333283