TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant are engaged in the manufacture of Vival Washing Machines(8422.80), Ampoules Washing Machines(8422.80) and Sterlization Tunnels(8479.19) etc. During the course of audit in February, 2003, it was revealed that the appellants have recovered integration/commissioning charges from the their customers over and above the declared transaction value in the invoices raised by them by raising commercial invoice No. 2 dated 13/7/2002, they have recovered Rs. 6 lacs from their customers viz. Global Pharmatech Pvt Ltd against the supply of Rotary Vival Washing Machine, Sterlization Tunnel etc and vide their commercial invoice No. 20 dated 27/3/2002 they have recovered Rs. 3,80,000/- from M/s. Pastaur Institute of India, Coonoor as integration and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chines and part amount towards integration and commissioning charges but both the amount relates to sale of the goods therefore charges recovered towards installation/commissioning charges is part of the transaction value which is chargeable to excise duty. He placed reliance on following judgments: (a) Commr. of C. Ex., Vapi Vs. Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt Ltd [2009(14) S.T.R. 305(Tri. Ahmd.)] (b) Commr. of Cus. & C.Ex. Aurangabad Vs. Roofit Industries Ltd[2015(319) ELT 221(S.C.)] 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. We find that the appellant have raised two invoices one is towards sale of the machines and second for integration and commissioning of the machines supplied to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same or not. It is seen that such charges are recovered separately by the assessee from their buyer and are in no way connected with the value of the goods manufactured by them. The said charges are subsequent to the clearance of the goods and has no nexus with the assessable value of the goods. We are of the view the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly allowed the respondents appeal and no infirmity can be found therein. We accordingly reject the Revenues appeal. (b) Erricsson India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I[2013(294) ELT 599(Tri. Del.)] 3. We find favour with the above submission of the learned advocate. Admittedly the contract entered between the appellant and M/s. BSNL is relatable to two se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts of the case involved, we find that the demand of the Department for inclusion of travelling expenses from the factory to the customers site for erection and installation work cannot form the part of the transaction value under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and, therefore, excise duty demand on such value is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (e) Commissioner of C. Ex. Kolkata-II Vs. RTS Power Corporation Ltd[2011(269) ELT 371(Tri. Kolkata)] 2. Revenue filed this Appeal against the impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of Rs. 44,064/-(Rupees Forty Four Thousand and Sixty Four only) and penalty of the equal amount on the ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods cleared from the factory. To the similar effect are the other decisions relied upon by the appellant. Tribunal in case of M/s. Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE, 2003 (160) E.L.T. 541 (Tri.-Del.), has held that deduction permissible under old Section 4 would continue to be available even in terms of new provisions for arriving at the assessable value. The installation charges being a separate activity, we find no reason to hold that the same was a part of the transaction so as to include the charges collected on value of such activity in the assessable value. 5. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. (g) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....installation of a plant cannot be held to be excisable goods. If such wide meaning is assigned it would result in bringing in its ambit structures, erections and installations. That surely would not be in consonance with accepted meaning of excisable goods and its eligibility to duty". 13. In view of the above, the judgement passed by the Assistant Collector as also by the Tribunal that installation and commissioning charges have to be treated as assessable value of the goods supplied by the appellants are not correct and are liable to be set aside. Since we are disposing of these appeals on merits on coming to the conclusion that the installation and commissioning charges could not be included in the value of the goods, the questi....