1997 (12) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ar, Member (T)]. The respondents manufactured textile machinery. They had collected erection and commissioning charges which fact was noted by the Department at a later date. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued on 21-4-1989 for the period December, 1983 to June, 1988 proposing to levy duty such charges collected on the contention that charges actually were warranty charges includible .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mance under warranty was conditional upon buyer making such payment. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.R.F. Limited - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) whereby the warranty charge was not held as admissible deduction. Shri Pathak, on the other hand, submitted that where buyers were repeated buyers, they did not need the assistance of the assessee to erect machinery. He sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nue but the second part seems to negate the claim made in the appeal memorandum that erection and commissioning charges were only stated in different name for the warranty charges. This claim does not sustain in view of the categorical statement made by the assessee s Representative that in majority of the cases where buyers had not opted for erection by the Assessee Company, the benefit of warran .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X