1. Revenue came up in appeal disputing that the services rendered for errection and installation of the equipment supplied by the appellant shall form part of the assessable value. This was only grievance for which they came in redressal, submitting that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) having ignored the aspects of obligation of the assessee to provide services as a part of the sale, re-consideration of the issue is desirable at the interest of justice.
2. The assessee came in Cross Objection submitting that the service charges received for the provisions of services was not integrally connected with cost of manufacture and railway authorities were at liberty to arrange any other agency for errection and installation, for which the first appellate order which is reasoned, and self speaking does not call for interference. It was also submitted that the service tax liability having been provided in work order, for the specific service of installation and errection, which is subject matter of the dispute, this provision alone does not call for interference to the appellate order. It was their submission further, that the supply order had stipulated that different considerations were payable and one such consideration was on rendering services. When the payment terms were categorically clear as per the work order, for discharge of two different obligation to be separately fulfilled, there is no scope to club consideration relating to service and sale. For such reason, there is no necessity to include the service charges in the assessable value which was rightly excluded by the ld. first appellate authority finding service charges received were already taxed by provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and the appellant had already deposited service tax. In support of their contention, they relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Thermax Limited v. Collector of Central Excise andCollector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v. Radiant Electronics Ltd. and Carrier Aircon Ltd. Board's Circular addressing that installation and erection charges received having suffered service tax that, itself is sufficient enough to hold that the services were separately rendered by virtue of separate contractual obligation.
3. Hearing both sides and examining the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the aforesaid decisions, the only conclusion that can be drawn, is that the sale was totally dis-integrated from the services and assessable value had no connection with the service consideration.
For this purposes, there is no necessity to include the consideration received towards erection and installation charges to be clubbed with assessable value.
4. Accordingly, Revenue's appeal is dismissed and Cross Objection merely supporting first appeal order is dismissed.