1996 (1) TMI 269 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of Turnkey project, bought out items, erection/installation, supervision charges for excise duty purposes.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the assessment of Turnkey projects, bought out items, and associated charges for excise duty purposes. M/s. Air Control & Chemicals Engg. Co. Ltd. manufactured plants/equipment for man-made fibers, with separate contracts for fabrication/supply and installation/erection/commissioning. The Department alleged wrongful credit for duty on 136 valves purchased by the company. The Assistant Collector considered Turnkey projects as goods, including bought out items and charges in the assessable value. The company appealed to the Collector (Appeals), who ruled in favor of the company, stating that Turnkey projects are not goods, thus excluding erection/installation charges. The Department appealed this decision.

During the appeal, the Department argued that Turnkey projects should be considered goods due to the composite nature of the contract, including bought items supplied with the main product. The company's advocate highlighted the Assistant Collector's contract analysis and the Collector (Appeals) decision that Turnkey projects are not excisable goods, citing relevant legal precedents. The Department contended that bought out items are integral to the main equipment and should be included in the assessable value.

The Tribunal thoroughly examined the issue and agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that Turnkey projects are not excisable goods. The Tribunal upheld the decision that the cost of bought out items, installation, and supervision charges should not be included in the assessable value. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that items firmly attached to the earth for installation are not considered excisable goods. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal, as there was no error in the Collector (Appeals) decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed that Turnkey projects are not excisable goods and upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Department's appeal based on the clear findings and legal principles established in the case.