2016 (10) TMI 447 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Whether the appellants, who have cleared their products and also rendered the commissioning and installation services vide separate contract and/or work order, are liable to pay Central Excise Duty on these charges, having already paid Service Tax on the same - Held that - for the installation activity, there is separate contract between the parties and the appellant had received the installation and commissioning charges on which Service Tax has been paid by the appellant and accepted by Revenue. Accordingly, by respectfully following the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs Official Liquidator For Brimco Plastic Machinery P. Ltd. 2015 (10) TMI 2281 - SUPREME COURT , the appellant is not liable to par Central excise duty again. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues: Liability to pay Central Excise Duty on commissioning and installation services after already paying Service Tax.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Liability: The core issue in this appeal is whether the appellants, who provided commissioning and installation services under separate contracts after clearing their products, are liable to pay Central Excise Duty on these charges despite already paying Service Tax on the same. The appellant received purchase orders for supply of Electric Energy Meters and provided installation services to various boards. The Revenue contended that installation and commissioning charges should be included in the assessable value for Central Excise Duty, leading to a show cause notice being issued.

2. Legislative Provisions: The Tribunal analyzed the legislative provisions governing Central Excise Duty and Service Tax. It noted that Central Excise Duty is levied under the Central Excise Act, 1944, while Service Tax falls under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal highlighted that these provisions are independent of each other, with no provision stating that if Central Excise Duty is applicable, then Service Tax is not chargeable, and vice versa.

3. Judicial Precedents: The appellant relied on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs Official Liquidator For Brimco Plastic Machinery P. Ltd., where it was held that installation charges for equipment at customer premises cannot be included in the assessable value for Central Excise Duty. The Tribunal also cited a Division Bench ruling in the case of Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., stating that when Service Tax is paid on an activity, it cannot be subject to Excise Duty or Sales Tax.

4. Decision: After considering the arguments, the Tribunal held that since there was a separate contract for installation activity, and Service Tax had been paid on the installation and commissioning charges, the appellant was not liable to pay Central Excise Duty on the same. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling mentioned earlier and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits, setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the liability of the appellants regarding Central Excise Duty on commissioning and installation services, emphasizing the independence of Central Excise Duty and Service Tax provisions and aligning with relevant judicial precedents to rule in favor of the appellant.