9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the appellants to pay interest at 20% under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act. He also levied a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is having various contracts for erection, supervising and commission of stenter and mangle machines. They enter into contracts with their various purchasers. It is submitted by the ld. Advocate Shri Motashaw on behalf of the appellants, that the erection is done by their respective clients, who have also erected the machines themselves but the appellants only sent an engineer or supervisor to see to it that erection is done in proper manner. On 23-12-1992, a show cause notice was issued by the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion to the observations of the Tribunal in para 4 thereof. He also emplises (sic) that the observations of the Commissioner in the order viz. However, duty was paid on the value shown on gate passes which was less than the value shown in invoices . He also invited our attention to the following observations of the Commissioner : I am of the view that in the instant case, the normal price of the contracted goods would be inclusive of erection, commissioning and service charges . 4. Shri Motashaw in reply would state that the production of invoice does not arise as the show cause notice is based on the invoice only. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. It would appear that the duty on the assessable value cannot include the erect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed material. In fact in the contract, we find some initials have been made after the typed material. Therefore, in our view, Rs. 350/- mentioned therein is included. We have to reject the contention of Shri Singh thereof. Moreover, in fact in one of the invoices, it shows that commissioning charges for 7 days from 31-3-1990 to 7-4-1990 has been charged by this appellant. This has never been controverted to. We are therefore of the view, taking totality of the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal in the 3 cases (supra) would apply to the facts of the case. We, therefore, do not accept the contentions raised by Shri Singh, the ld. JDR for the department. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
