2004 (5) TMI 358 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of testing charges in the assessable value of goods cleared by the assessee.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of testing charges in the assessable value of goods cleared by the assessee. The issue arose when the Revenue challenged orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, alleging that the assessee had undervalued the goods by not including testing charges in the assessable value. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of 'Parts of Towers' and 'Structures' falling under specific sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue contended that charges for testing prototype transmission towers should be added to the assessable value of the goods cleared by the assessee.

The adjudicating authority initially accepted the assessee's contention that the testing charges were not required for the completion of the product and were conducted at the instance of customers, thus not includible in the assessable value. The Revenue, however, argued that the charges should be added based on a previous tribunal decision. The tribunal referred to conflicting decisions on similar matters, highlighting a case where testing charges were deemed includible and another where they were not. Additionally, the tribunal noted that the view treating transmission towers as excisable goods was no longer valid based on a different judgment.

In the present case, the tribunal considered the specific circumstances where prototype towers underwent destructive testing, resulting in their eventual destruction. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that these tests were conducted in relation to the goods manufactured by the assessee, emphasizing that the parts of transmission towers were cleared after quality tests and that the destruction testing on prototypes should not be added to the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondent. Consequently, the tribunal affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision in favor of the respondent.