2004 (1) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r has taken the view that in terms of definition of 'Transaction Value' under Section 4(3)(d), the amounts collected by the appellants through four invoices is liable for being charged with duty and duty claim of Rs. 1,98,600/- confirmed by the original authority has been upheld. The show cause notice dated 21-6-2001 states that appellants are manufacturers of shiftable conveyors, bucket wheel excavator, spreader falling under chapter heading 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These items were supplied to the NLC as per the contract entered into between them. It is stated that apart from the manufacture and supply of the above mentioned items, they had entered into contract for erection supervision, testing and commissioning includi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was carried out by the NLC by purchasing the items from various people and with involvement of other contractors. There was no involvement of appellant in erection of three items mentioned in the show cause notice. Therefore, the question of including it in any aspect of supplies does not arise. They also contend that service charges is also not includible in the assessments made under Section 4 whichever it might be in terms of judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of M/s. O.R.G. Systems v. CCE, Vadodara, 1998 (102) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and that of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE & C Pune, Nichrome Metal Works P. Ltd., 2001 (135) E.L.T. 429 and that of Daya Engg. Works (Sleeper) Ltd v. CCE, Jaipur, 2003 (158) E.L.T. 819 (Tri. - ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vague and does not reopen the assessment made with regard to supplies of all three items made by the appellants. It does not state as to which amount the service charges collected through four invoices is required to be added. The service charges collected were independent of erection work and it was only a contract for supervision of entire installation work of various machineries which turned out into an immovable property done in the premises of NLC. The appellants were not the only supplier of various machineries which were erected piece by piece into immovable property. Therefore, even in terms of the Board's clarification in this regard, such erection of immovable property will not result into goods and service charges collected for s....