TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant and imposing total penalty of Rs. 68,73,564/- on them. The period of dispute is from 1-7-2000 to 31-12-2004. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Integrated Control Automation Monitoring Systems (ICAM systems) falling under Heading 90.32 of Central Excise Tariff. These systems are used in the industries like cement, mining, steel, chemicals, fertilizers, petrochemicals, power generation etc. for automation, control and monitoring of various processes. The appellants clear these systems on payment of duty and at the option of their customers, also erect, instal and commission the systems at their customers' premises and sometimes also impart training to the customer's employees in operation of ICAM systems. Sometimes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....According to Revenue, the charges for erection, installation, commissioning, supervision and training, wherever the same are recovered from the customers, are 'by the reason of or in connection with the sale of ICAM system and that the ICAM systems after installation in the customers' premises do not become immovable as the same can be shifted though at a high expense, and therefore, the erection, installation, commissioning and supervision charges are includible in the assessable value. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri Ravi Raghvan, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants made the submissions which are as under: '(1) The charges collected on account of training, erection, installation, commissioning and supervision are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....site of the customer would not be includible in the assessable value. The Tribunal in a series of judgment which are mentioned below has also taken the same view. 1. Rollatainers Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 257 2. Vesuvius India Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 410 3. Rollatainers Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 465 4. CCE v. Kirloskar Electric Co. - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 334 5. Rhino Machines P. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 63 6. Emerson Network Power India Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 168 7. CCE v. Oceanic Cooling Towers (P) Ltd. - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 631 8. Carrier Aircon Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III- 2003 (160) E.L.T. 419 9. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V. CCE - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 86 10. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the ICAM systems had already been decided in the appellants' favour by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner for the period prior to July, 2000 vide order-in-original dated 26-4-1994 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner. In view of this, there is no question of inclusion of the amount in the assessable value for the period post July, 2000. For the same reason, there is absolutely no justification for invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act and imposition of penalty on the appellants under Section 11AC. 2.2 Shri V. Choudhary, ld. DR emphasize that the amounts, in dispute, are in connection with or for the reason of sale and therefore, the same are includible in the assessable value. 3. In this case, the appellant manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e clearly post removal expenses, having no nexus with manufacturing or marketing of the goods and hence the same are not includible in the assessable value. This factual position has not changed during the period w.e.f. 1-7-2000. The adjudicating authority, however, has taken the view that the ICAM systems after erection, installation, commissioning at site are movable though at very high expenses. We do not accept this view as these systems, made for particular customers, are permanently installed at plant site through cement grouting and cabling over a huge area so as to result the permanent installation. In view of this, Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Thermax Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) and also t....