9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le value - goods cleared at the factory gate, assessable value will not include payment made for any activities thereafter - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - APPEAL No: E/3888/2005 - ORDER No.A/93818/16/EB. - Dated:- 16-11-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate for the appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) for the respondent Per: C J Mathew: The dispute in this appeal of M/s Autopack Machines Pvt Ltd is the inclusion of erection, installation and commissioning charges in the assessable value of industrial packing machines manufactured the appellant and cleared on payment of duty in completely knocked down (CKD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrived at the time of clearance of the goods at the factory gate. All the expenses which are incurred post clearance (that too, after the supply of equipment) in respect of installation etc., could not have been taken into consideration in the facts of the present case as noted by the CESTAT. 4. Likewise, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v. Puissane De DPK [2013 (297) ELT 443 (Tri-Chennai)] , the Tribunal has held thus. 10.1 Excise duty is on manufacture. Erection and commissioning is in the nature of a service and the Apex Court had held in the case of Thermax Ltd. (supra) that payments made towards erection and commissioning cannot form part of assessable value of excisable goods. Of course this decision was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - (i) Lakshmi Card Clothing Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 116 (ii) Wadco Schlegal Automative v. CCE - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 202 (Tri.). 10.4 In the above cases, the issue dealt with was dutiability of Diesel Generating sets assembled at site. The manufacturers had not paid duty on the item as diesel generating set at all. Such are the situations dealt with C.B.E. C. s clarification 643/34/2002-CX., dated 1-7-2002 at S. No. 10. The facts of this case are different inasmuch as the respondent had paid duty on the DG sets. 10.5 So, we do not agree with the argument of revenue that this position has changed due to the new definition of transaction value. So we uphold the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
