2009 (2) TMI 289 - AT - Central Excise

Inclusion of design and engineering charges to the assessable value of the reactor. - There is no evidence on record to show that the engineering and designing charges relate to the reactor only by any means or strength of law. We are compelled to interpretate the word such goods appearing in Rule 6 of Valuation Rules, 2000 to hold that the drawing charges pertaining to reactor only shall be added to assessable value. Therefore, the appellants succeed and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the design and engineering charges of US $ 2,80,000, with an amount of 30,000 US $ already included in the assessable value of the excisable goods, require adding the balance of US $ 2,40,000 to the assessable value of the reactor.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of a reactor for Gujarat Refinery of IOC, was involved in a dispute regarding the inclusion of design and engineering charges in the assessable value of the reactor. The turnkey contract awarded by IOC to an Italian concern included various components, with the reactor's value being Rs. 1,90,50,000. The design and engineering charges for manufacturing the reactor were 40,000 US $. The revenue acknowledged that the total design and engineering charges were 2,80,000 US $ and should be added to the assessable value of the reactor.

The appellant argued that the design and engineering charges not related to the reactor should not be included. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously ruled against the appellant on this matter. The appellant relied on past Tribunal decisions to support their case. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that all design and engineering charges should be included in the assessable value of the reactor, citing relevant judgments.

The Tribunal examined Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, which mandates the inclusion of certain charges in the assessable value of goods. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not clarify whether the engineering charges related solely to the reactor. In the absence of evidence indicating deliberate segregation of charges to evade duty payment, the Tribunal interpreted the rule to require only the drawing charges specific to the reactor to be added to the assessable value. As the evidence did not establish a direct link between the engineering charges and the reactor, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the Valuation Rules and the lack of evidence connecting the engineering charges to the reactor. The appellant succeeded in their appeal, and the additional charges were not added to the assessable value of the reactor.