2023 (7) TMI 762

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngal Power Development Corporation, treating the same as additional consideration under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 2. The facts of the case are that The Appellant is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing of boiler and boiler parts classifiable under Chapter Heading 8402 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Accordingly, the Appellant obtained registration under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and held registration number AABCA8679FXM011. 2.1 The Appellant entered into two contracts with West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. for supply and installation of 3x210 MW Boiler (Unit 5, 4 and 3) vide LOI WBPDCL/ MD/ ORDER/ BKTPP/ 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5,79,54,802 4,23,28,680 10,02,83,482 Committed labour: @ 5% of  balance contract  price. 3,86,36,534 - 3,86,36,534 Rental of space for holding the inventory of raw material/ WIP/ RFS from 1994 to 2002 2,10,69,569 (72,41,582) 1,21,82,090 3,32,51,659 Transport, handling, port terminal charges and storage charges of imported goods/ raw material.   1,26,74,672 (25,66,910) (Less:) Reduction as part of final settlement (80,00,000)     Total 10,24,19,323 6,71,85,442 16,96,04,765 2.6 As per the Final MOU, the following was mutually agreed between the parties: a. Damages: The amount of damages payable to the Appellant was mutually agreed to be made....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ; (iii) Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, 2023 (2) TMI 658 - CESTAT Mumbai (iv) Vimlachal Print & Pack Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad, 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 496 (Tri. - Ahmd.) (v) Essel Propack Ltd. v. CCE, Thane-I, 2016 (341) E.L.T. 470 (Tri. - Mum.) (vi) KSB Pumps Ltd. v. CCE, 2007 (216) E.L.T. 51 (Tri. - Mum.) (vii) Inox Air Products Limited v. CCE, 2001 (134) E.L.T. 224 (Tri. - Mum.) (viii) CCE, Belgaum v. Praxair India Ltd., 2008 (223) E.L.T. 596 (Tri. - Chennai) (ix) CCE, Jamshepur v. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd., 2000 (117) E.L.T. 647 (Tribunal) He, therefore, submits that the duty is not leviable on damages received as a result of cancellation of agreemen....