TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1021
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of India Limited separately then the assessable value on which Excise duty was paid. He submits that since the testing is on the request of the customer and it is not the obligation of the appellant to carry out such tests to complete the manufacture of goods. Therefore, the said testing charges is not includible in the assessable value as held in the following judgments:- * LB-BHASKAR ISPAT PVT. LTD.2004 (167) E.L.T. 189 (Tri. LB) * Commissioner v. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (342) E.L.T. A223 (S.C.) * 2015 (317) E.L.T. 299 (Tri. - Ahmd.) LUBI SUBMERSIBLES LTD * 2017 (351) E.L.T. 307 (Tri. - Mumbai)PAM PHARMACEUTICAL & ALLIED MACHINERY CO. LTD * 2018 (359) E.L.T. 590 (Tri. - Chennai) JEEVAN DIESELS & ELECTRICALS LTD As regard the testing conducted on the request of the customer, he referred to the bill copy of the testing charges for reimbursement and also the contract for supply of goods to the Power Grid Corporation. He further submits that in the appellant's own case for different location Meerut-II Commissioner (Appeals) has passed order allowing the appeal on the identical issue vide Order In Appeal No. GZB-EXCUS-000-APP-0351-15-16 dated 09.03.2016. He req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it was also held that it is settled law that charges paid for inspection or testing by third party at the option of the buyer cannot form part of the assessable value. As in the case of Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda (supra) that inspection charges were not for the additional or optional testing, therefore, taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case, it was held that these are includible in the assessable value. 4. The issue before us is to decide whether the additional testing charges at the request of customer and borne by the customer, are includible in the assessable value of the goods for the purpose of Central Excise duty. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Shree Pipes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 (Tribunal) held that such additional testing charges born by the customer and which are optional, are not includible in the assessable value of the goods. Revenue filed appeal against this decision and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. A63 (S.C.) - C.C.E. v. Shree Pipes Ltd. This decision was followed by the Tribunal in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stries Ltd., reported in 2014-TIOL-573-CESTAT-Del would be applicable to this case and these charges would not be includible in the assessable value." The above decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the Revenue Appeal reported at Commissioner v. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt. Ltd- 2016 (342) E.L.T. A223 (S.C.) 4.3 In another case on the identical issue this Tribunal in the case of LUBI SUBMERSIBLES LTD taken the same view is under: "4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal filed by the revenue is whether PDI charges incurred only at the instance of the buyer are required to be added to the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not. The first appellate authority has rejected revenue's appeal on the ground that as per Larger Bench judgment in the case of BhaskarIspat Pvt. Ltd. (supra) PDI charges at the option exercised by the buyer are not required to be included in the assessable value. It is also observed that this issue is no more res integra as this very bench in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-II v. Johnson Pumps (I) Ltd. (supra) has held as follows in paragraph 4 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 12-1-99 vide Circular No. 681/72/2002-CX, dated 12-12-02 in the context of old Section 4 of CEA, 1944. The C.B.E. & C. has issued a Circular dated 12-5-00 [2000 (118) E.L.T. 45] in which in Para 2.2 it has been clarified that the concept of new transaction value under Section 4 has same scope as that of old Section 4 of the Act and Valuation Rules. Hence, respectfully following the ratio of the above decisions, I hold that the third party's inspection charges initially paid by the appellants and subsequently reimbursed by the buyers is not includible in the assessable value of the goods. I, therefore, hold that duty demand of Rs. 25,125/- on inspection charges along with interest is not sustainable." 5. As against the above, learned JDR relied upon another circular of Board being No. 643/34/2002-CX., dated 1-7-2002. However, we find that reference in the said circular is to the pre-delivery inspection charges incurred by the dealer during the warranty period. The same does not relate to the pre-inspection conducted by the manufacturer at the behest of their buyer. The issue stands discussed in detail by Commissioner (Appeals), who has followed the precedent decisions of....