9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1998 (2) TMI 277 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Assessable value determination based on price list declaration and contract breakdown. Analysis: The case involves the appellant's challenge against a show cause notice proposing a demand for differential duty on a contract involving a Rotary Drilling Rig Trailer Mounted. The appellant declared an assessable value of Rs. 7,09,625.00, while the total contract amount was Rs. 28,11,125.00. The dispute arose from the inclusion of various equipment values in the assessable value. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, leading to the present appeal. The contract breakdown revealed different components and their values. The contract specified the value of the drilling rig as Rs. 22,84,625.00, including essential parts like Kelly, Weight Indicator, and Rotary Table. The lower authorities justified adding these values to the assessable amount, considering them integral to the rig's functioning. Regarding additional spare parts valued at Rs. 2,11,125.00, the appellant argued they were not essential and should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal agreed, stating that imported spares, not integral to the equipment, should not impact the assessable value. Similarly, the contract detailed operating equipment and accessories valued at Rs. 3,15,500.00. The appellant contended these were not essential for the rig's operation. The Tribunal found the lower authorities did not adequately justify adding this value to the assessable amount. They remanded this specific issue back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld including the values of Kelly, Weight Indicator, and Rotary Table in the assessable value but set aside the inclusion of spare parts and operating equipment/accessories. The case was remanded for a fresh determination on the latter components. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, providing clarity on the assessable value components and necessitating a reevaluation by the adjudicating authority.
|
