9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (1) TMI 240 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Inclusion of service charges in assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. 2. Vagueness of the show cause notice and time limitation for issuing the notice. Analysis: 1. The appeal concerned the inclusion of service charges in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner upheld a duty claim based on the definition of 'Transaction Value' under Section 4(3)(d), confirming a duty of Rs. 1,98,600/- on service charges collected through four invoices. The appellant argued that the service charges were for supervision of installation work and not part of the assessable value of supplied machinery. They cited legal precedents like M/s. O.R.G. Systems v. CCE and others to support their contention that service charges are not includible in the assessable value. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the service charges collected independently for supervision work are not to be added to the assessable value of the machinery supplied. The show cause notice was deemed vague, not relating to any assessment, and time-barred as the contracts were completed in 1997-98, making the notice issued in 2001 invalid. 2. The second issue revolved around the vagueness of the show cause notice and the time limitation for issuing it. The Tribunal found the notice lacking specificity on which amounts the service charges should be added to, leading to the conclusion that the notice was not maintainable in law. Moreover, since the assessments for the supplies were completed in 1997-98, the show cause notice issued in 2001 was considered time-barred. The Tribunal highlighted that the service charges collected for supervision, independent of the supplied machinery, were not to be included in the assessable value, aligning with legal judgments that clarified the exclusion of service charges from such calculations. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting any consequential relief as per law.
|
