2002 (5) TMI 713 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of erection and commissioning charges in the assessable value of machinery.
2. Interpretation of previous Tribunal orders and Supreme Court directions.
3. Rebuttal of factual findings by the Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the inclusion of erection and commissioning charges in the assessable value of machinery manufactured by the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that such charges should not be included. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing a previous order in the respondents' case and rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the need for a factual determination on whether the goods were eligible for excise duty. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the case, considering the marketability and production process of the goods.

2. The Tribunal noted that the machinery in question was manufactured in the respondents' factory, and the Revenue did not challenge this factual finding. The Revenue argued that erection and commissioning were integral to the manufacturing process, citing previous Supreme Court decisions. However, the Tribunal distinguished the present case from those precedents, as the machinery was acknowledged to be produced in the factory before installation. Relying on the earlier Tribunal decision and the finality of its findings, the Tribunal upheld the exclusion of erection and commissioning charges from the assessable value, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and cross objection.

3. The Tribunal highlighted the factual finding that the machinery was created in the factory before installation, which the Revenue did not contest. The Revenue's argument that erection and commissioning were part of the manufacturing process was countered by the Tribunal, emphasizing the distinct nature of the machinery's production and installation phases. By referencing the established decision and the lack of interference required, the Tribunal maintained the exclusion of such charges from the assessable value, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's contentions and upholding the earlier order in favor of the respondents.