9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llation and commissioning charges could not be included in the value of the goods. Therefore, in view of the same, the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. - Decided against the Revenue - E/1505/05-Mum E/CO/274/05-Mum - A/89176-89177/16/EB - Dated:- 26-5-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri H.M. Dixit, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for appellant Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate, for respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No. BR/18/M-IV/2005 dated 21.1.2005. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondent herein is a manufacturer of monoliths/signages (hereinafter refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and commissioning and for pre-delivery inspection charges, which has been collected by the respondent are includible in the value of the goods as post July 2000, transaction value regime came into picture, due to which any amount which is collection in relation to the same, duty liability has to be discharged. He would submit that the monoliths/signages will come into existence only when there is a permanent light source to the illuminated signboard. He would rely upon the Board s circular dated 1.7.2002 which clarified that amounts collected for erection, installation and commissioning charges are includible in the assessable value for discharge of excise duty. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent draws our att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises of the respondent was a complete monolith. The contract specifically indicates that erection and commissioning of the said monolith can be undertaken by the respondent for an additional payment. It is nowhere indicative in the contract that the respondent was obliged to do the said installation and erection and no one else was to be appointed for such work. In the absence of any restrictive clause in the agreement, we find that the amount received by the respondent towards erection/installation/commissioning charges are not includible in the assessable value so also the amounts received for pre-delivery inspection charges, as these charges are not attributable for manufacture of goods. 7. We find that the learned counsel was cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtical Crystallisers had to be assembled, erected and attached to the earth by a foundation at the site of the sugar factory. It was held that the erection and installation of a plant was not excisable. 12. In coming to this conclusion, reliance was placed on an earlier decision of this Court in Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1995 (75) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.) = (1995) 2 SCC 372, in which also it was held that erection and installation charges cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods. It was held thus :- erection and installation of a plant cannot be held to be excisable goods. If such wide meaning is assigned it would result in bringing in its ambit structures, erections and installations. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
