9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1994 (12) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Determination of whether installation and commissioning charges, as well as cabling charges, are to be included in the assessable value of Electronics Automatic Private Branch Exchange (EPABX) manufactured by the party.
Summary: The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, heard 9 appeals filed by the Department concerning common issues related to the assessable value of EPABX systems. The main contention was whether charges for installation, commissioning, and cabling should be included in the assessable value. The party argued that these charges were optional and had no direct relation to the manufacturing process of EPABX. The Collector (Appeals) had varied decisions on including these charges, leading to the Department challenging these orders. The Department argued that installation and commission charges directly impacted the functionality and marketability of EPABX systems, citing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bombay Tyre International. They contended that any expenses enhancing the product's marketability should be included in the assessable value. Regarding cabling charges, the Department had no objection to remanding the matter due to inconsistencies in previous decisions. The party relied on previous cases to support their stance that installation and commission charges were post-manufacturing expenses and should not be included in the assessable value. They also argued that cabling charges for optional accessories should not enrich the value of the product and thus should be excluded. After considering both sides' arguments, the Tribunal concluded that installation and commission charges were not to be included in the assessable value as they were post-manufacturing expenses. The Tribunal also agreed that cabling charges for optional accessories should not be included in the value of EPABX. The matter regarding cabling charges was remanded for further consideration by the Assistant Collector. In conclusion, the appeals and Cross Objections were disposed of based on the above findings.
|
