9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various types. It is the case of the Revenue that during April 1999 to December 2003, the respondent manufactured and cleared the goods on payment of duty at the sites of BPCL and IOCL and erected and commissioned the same at the site as per the contract. The respondent had recovered freight charges on account of bringing such goods and also charged various amounts for erection, commissioning, installation and third party inspection charges. It is the case that these charges have to be included in the value for discharge of central excise duty. Show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty, which was adjudicated by the authority after following due process of law and the central excise duty as well as inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent draws our attention to the contract entered by them with BPCL and IOCL and submits that the freight charges which are collected by the respondent as well as the erection charges are contracted to be paid as extra and the inspection of the goods will be done by BPCL in above to which, if required, further inspection is done for which there was no charge. He would submit that the issue is now squared covered by the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of Madras Power Supplies vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 2002 (149) ELT 369, Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CCE, Cochin reported in 2003 (160) ELT 836 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thermax Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 1998 (99) ELT 481 (SC). 5. On carefu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of goods. 7. We find that the learned counsel was correct in submitting that the issue is now squarely covered by the judgment of the apex court in the case of Thermax Ltd. (supra). We reproduce the ratio which is in paragraphs 9 to 13. "9. The only question, therefore, with which we are left in these appeals is whether the erection and commissioning charges for which the appellants had separately charged from its customers could be legally included in the assessable value of the goods, namely, the Boiler manufactured and supplied by the appellants. Or, to put it differently, whether the installation and commissioning charges are exigible to excise duty? This controversy stands concluded by two decisions of this Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in its ambit structures, erections and installations. That surely would not be in consonance with accepted meaning of excisable goods and its exigibility to duty." 13. In view of the above, the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector as also by the Tribunal that installation and commissioning charges have to be treated as assessable value of the goods supplied by the appellants are not correct and are liable to be set aside. Since we are disposing of these appeals on merits on coming to the conclusion that the installation and commissioning charges could not be included in the value of the goods, the question of limitation relating to the show cause notice issued under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Act for the period from 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
