9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1987 (2) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved:
Two appeals filed by the department regarding restoration of demands for differential central excise duty. The first demand set aside by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground of time bar, and the second demand inadvertently omitted in the final order but upheld by the Assistant Collector. Issue 1: Demand for Consultancy Charges The demands were raised due to costs of consultancy charges, erection charges, and service charges not included in the assessable value of machinery sold by the respondents. The consultancy charges included various elements like drawing, designing, technical specifications, project reports, plant layout, technical know-how, and staff training. The tribunal found that consultancy charges were part service and part manufacturing costs. The demand was not time-barred as the respondents suppressed separate invoices for these charges, constituting a clear case of suppression. The demand within the extended time limit was upheld for drawing, designing, and technical specification costs, with the Assistant Collector tasked to quantify the amount. Issue 2: Other Elements of Costs Elements like project reports, plant layout, technical know-how, and staff training were considered services separate from manufacturing costs. As some consultancy contracts did not result in machinery sales, these service costs were deemed not includible in the assessable value of machinery. Issue 3: Erection and Service Charges Erection and service charges for installation and maintenance of machinery were found not includible in the assessable value for two reasons: incurred after removal from the factory gate and machinery becoming immovable property post-installation. The demand for these charges was deemed not tenable on merits, and the respondents were not obligated to disclose them as part of manufacturing costs. The tribunal upheld the setting aside of the demand on account of erection and service charges. In conclusion, the tribunal confirmed the demand only for drawing, designing, and technical specification charges, rejecting the appeals on other grounds.
|
