2007 (10) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Bought out items such as cable, cards, etc. used for installation of Attendance Data Management Systems are necessary for function of the system - duty has already been paid on all bought out items so value of these bought out items can t be added to value of impugned systems - held that erection and commissioning charges are not includible in the A V of the machinery because sale value of any machinery is entirely distinct from the charges collected for erection and commissioning

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of erection/installation and commissioning charges in the assessable value of electronic equipment.
2. Inclusion of the value of bought out items in the assessable value of Attendance Data Management Systems (ADAMS).

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first appeal (Appeal No. 371/06) involved the question of whether erection/installation and commissioning charges should be included in the assessable value of Intelligence Data Capturing Unit (IDCU). The Original Authority demanded duty, interest, and penalty, which the appellants contested by citing various legal decisions. The Tribunal noted that it is established that such charges are not part of the assessable value of machinery supplied. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between the sale value of goods and charges for erection and commissioning. As these charges are not part of the transaction value, the demand for duty on erection charges was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief if any.

Issue 2:
The second appeal (Appeal No. E/372/06) dealt with the inclusion of the value of bought out items in the assessable value of ADAMS. The Revenue sought duty, interest, and penalty for including items like uncoated cards and cables in the assessable value. The Tribunal observed that these bought out items, although necessary for the system's function, had excise duty already paid on them. Therefore, there was no justification for adding their value to the goods supplied by the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty should be imposed, and there was no basis for invoking the longer period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

In both cases, the Tribunal provided a detailed analysis based on legal principles and precedents, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants by setting aside the demands made by the Revenue authorities.