Appeal No. E/1607/2008, (Arising Out Oia-137/2008/Ahd-I/Ce/Id/Commr-A Dt 04/08/2008 Passed By The Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs (Appeals) -Ahmedabad-I). Case: Ms. C Doctor India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS, Ahmedabad 1. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Appeal No. E/1607/2008, (Arising Out Oia-137/2008/Ahd-I/Ce/Id/Commr-A Dt 04/08/2008 Passed By The Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs (Appeals) -Ahmedabad-I) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri L Patra, Authorised Representative |
| Judges | Dr . D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Shri Ashok K Arya, Member (Technical) |
| Issue | Central Excise Law |
| Judgement Date | May 17, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Dr. D.M. Misra,( West Zonal Bench)
-
Heard both sides
-
This appeal is filed against OIA-137/2008/AHD-I/CE/ID/COMMR-A dt 04/08/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS (Appeals) -AHMEDABAD-I
-
The brief facts of the case are that a show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging incorrect determination of assessable value resulting into short payment of total duty of Rs 6,55,722/- which was proposed to be recovered with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
-
The Ld Advocate Shri Dhaval Shah for the appellant submits that duty of Rs 4,56,307/- was confirmed on account of non-inclusion of value of bought out items viz., Bearings for Fans, Motor assembly, Fan Pulley, Motor Pulley, V Belts etc; also an amount of Rs 1,99,415/- was confirmed for non-inclusion of expenditure incurred on account of installation and commissioning charges recovered from the customer. He submits that the bought-out items, which are non-essential parts supplied to the customers cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods. Also, he has submitted that Service Tax was paid on the erection and commissioning charges incurred at the site of the customers, cannot form part of the transaction value of the machines and parts thereof, supplied to the customers. He submits that in the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) order, there is no discussion about the inclusion of bought of items in the value of machinery sold and also without any basis confirmed the demand on erection and commissioning...
To continue reading
Request your trial