Recent Supreme Court Judgements
CENTRAL Excise - Valuation - whether the installation, erection and commissioning charges for equipment installed at customer's premises and values thereof can be added/included for determining the assessable value?
CESTAT has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in PSI Data System Ltd. v. Collector - , Mittal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - , holding that inclusion of installation, erection and commissioning charges for equipment installed at customer's premises cannot be added/ included to determine the assessable value.
This is obvious conclusion on reading of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act as per which the transaction value is to be arrived at 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.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs Brimco Plastic Machinery Pvt Ltd - 2015-TIOL-273-SC-CX.
Central Excise - Modvat/CENVAT - credit of inputs used in mines entitled - the goods in question were captively used for the construction of the plant and had nothing to do with the mining which is accepted by the Department itself in the show cause notice.
Credit of inputs used in mines entitled - the goods in question were captively used for the construction of the plant and had nothing to do with the mining which is accepted by the Department itself in the show cause notice. Yet the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (A). There was no need to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) as on admitted facts when the principle laid down in Vikram Cement's case is applied, the assessee was not liable to pay any duty. The order of the CESTAT remitting the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) is thus, set aside allowing these appeals.
Please see Madras Cements Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central excise, Trichy -
Customs - Valuation - Under valuation - Tribunal has not only misinterpreted the statements of two partners of the assessee, it has also sidetracked and ignored other relevant material
There is a categorical admission that the prices/values declared for imports through Chennai port for similar items was much less compared to the values declared at Mumbai port. The justification which was ultimately sought to be given was that the goods imported at Chennai port were defective in nature which was the reason and for this reason, these goods were brought at lesser price. It was also explained that though there was guarantee clause in the contracts in respect of goods imported at Mumbai, no similar provision was there for the products imported and cleared at Chennai port. However, the assessee has not substantiated the aforesaid plea by producing the contract in respect of Mumbai port and Chennai port. In the absence thereof, it was not permissible for the Tribunal to accept this plea of the assessee.