2016 (9) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(hereinafter referred to as the goods) of various types.  It is the case of the Revenue that during April 1999 to December 2003, the respondent manufactured and cleared the goods on payment of duty at the sites of BPCL and IOCL and erected and commissioned the same at the site as per the contract.  The respondent had recovered freight charges on account of bringing such goods and also charged various amounts for erection, commissioning, installation and third party inspection charges.  It is the case that these charges have to be included in the value for discharge of central excise duty.  Show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty, which was adjudicated by the authority after following due process of law a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp; Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent draws our attention to the contract entered by them with BPCL and IOCL and submits that the freight charges which are collected by the respondent as well as the erection charges are contracted to be paid as extra and the inspection of the goods will be done by BPCL in above to which, if required, further inspection is done for which there was no charge.  He would submit that the issue is now squared covered by the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of Madras Power Supplies vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 2002 (149) ELT 369, Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CCE, Cochin reported in 2003 (160) ELT 836 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thermax Ltd. vs. CCE reported ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as these charges are not attributable for manufacture of goods. 7.  We find that the learned counsel was correct in submitting that the issue is now squarely covered by the judgment of the apex court in the case of Thermax Ltd. (supra).  We reproduce the ratio which is in paragraphs 9 to 13. "9. The only question, therefore, with which we are left in these appeals is whether the erection and commissioning charges for which the appellants had separately charged from its customers could be legally included in the assessable value of the goods, namely, the Boiler manufactured and supplied by the appellants. Or, to put it differently, whether the installation and commissioning charges are exigible to excise duty? This con....