Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2012 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2012 (11) TMI 480 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Whether charges for cabin making should be added to the assessable value of bulkers.
2. Whether service charges of 5% should be included in the assessable value of bulkers.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by both the Revenue and the assessee against the impugned order. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing machinery and bulkers, received duty paid bare chassis for bulker fabrication. Duty paid bare chassis were sent to a job worker for cabin fabrication, with the job worker clearing the cabins under an exemption notification. The assessee then fabricated the bulkers and paid duty on the assessable value. A show cause notice was issued to add cabin making charges to the assessable value of each bulker, along with 5% service charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for cabin making charges. The Revenue contended that cabin building charges should be added to the assessable value, but the Tribunal held that the job worker, not the present assessee, was liable to pay duty on cabins. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

2. The assessee challenged the inclusion of 5% service charges in the assessable value of bulkers. The Tribunal found that the service charges were for coordination and procurement of materials for the bulkers manufactured by the assessee. Therefore, the service charges were to be added to the assessable value of the bulkers. The appeal by the assessee was also dismissed. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal.

This judgment clarifies the liability for duty payment on cabin making charges and service charges in the context of bulkers manufacturing. The Tribunal differentiated between the responsibilities of the job worker and the manufacturer, providing a clear rationale for dismissing both appeals.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates