Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2008 (12) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in the computer. The second cause gave rise to duty demand of Rs. 76,800/- (Rupees Seventy Six Thousand Eight Hundred only) is for use of the goods in the computer supplied. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the Appellant on first count. Learned DR submits that the work order of the Telephone Authority itself shows that a composite contract was executed by the Respondent, involving supply and service. When such contract is executed, exempting installation from duty is inconceivable, and the amount of Rs. 22,11,427/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Seven only) should be included in the assessable value. The respondent had also deducted 8% of the contract value for maintenance. Learned Appellate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a bunch of copies of the invoices which goes to say that there was a separate charge for realization of service charges towards training, installation and maintenance charges. Relying on such invoices, he pleads that the charges so collected separately and not related to manufacture shall not form part of assessable value. 5. So far as the appeal of the respondent registered as appeal case No. 4036 is concerned, his submission is that they are on the limited issue of levy of duty of Rs. 76,800/-. This amount was levied erroneously presuming that bought out items were also manufactured goods and supplied with computers manufactured by the Appellant and held to be part of assessable value. Learned Commissioner without examining such aspect o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ach other. Therefore service not being manufacture was not goods and not liable to duty. We also find the decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned counsel are coming to rescue of Respondent. 8. In the result we dismiss the appeal of Revenue against grievance/of no levy of duty of Rs. 22,11,427/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Eleven Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Seven only) held by learned Commissioner (A) and confirm the demand of levy of Rs. 76,800/- on computer items in absence of any evidence adduced by the assessee to show that those were distinctly supplied goods without being integral part of computer system. Accordingly assessee's appeal on the grievance of duty of Rs. 76,800/- and penalty of equal amount is dismissed and we con....