K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)

1. These five appeals involve common issues of facts and law. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this combined order.

2. The appellants manufacture "Electric Overhead Travelling Cranes"., They are aggrieved because the Collector (Appeals) has held that charges on account of erection, installation and commissioning of these cranes at customer's site are includible in the assessable value of the cranes. Further, in two of these cases, state the appellants, even cost of transport (freight and transit insurance) has been added to the cost of erection work.

3. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter. The learned representative of the department stated very fairly that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bombay Tyre International 1983 E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), he would have no objection to the cost of transport after removal of the goods from the factory gate being excluded from the assessable value. We agree with him and allow such exclusion.

4. Regarding erection, installation and commissioning charges, the learned representative of the department defended the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals). He contended that the cranes became fully manufactured goods only after they had been erected at site. They could not be considered immovable property, he continued, because it was possible to un-screw the bolts and nuts, dismantle the cranes and move them elsewhere.

5. The appellants reiterated what they had already explained in detail before the Collector (Appeals). They stated that the subject cranes were removed from their factory in knocked down condition. Each of these cranes was tailor made to suit the specific size of the shop premises where it was to be installed as well as the magnitude of the job it was to perform. The customer had an option either to get the installation work done by the appellants or by someone else or by the customer himself. Those who opted to avail of the services of the appellants, entered into a separate contract for installation work with the appellants and the appellants, after performing the job, issued separate invoices for the installation job. The nature of the installation job has been described by the appellants as under in the impugned order :-

"Now this installation or commission work comprises of welding, riveting and bolting according to the suitability of purpose of each type of crane. The rails on which the crane moves are permanently fixed to the steel columns of the factory building. These steel columns are again permanently fixed required cement concrete base by holding down bolts much in the manner as Howrah Bridge is fixed to the ground. These bolts are no ordinary bolts which could theoretically be removed by unscrewing the nuts. These are special types of bolts known as holding down bolts which are heavily anchored with the cement concrete foundation base. Therefore, the steel columns which hold both cranes and factory structure cannot be taken out by undoing the nuts of the holding down bolts and these cranes cannot function without the steel columns and cement concrete base fixed to the earth. Since these cranes are tailor-made, these cannot function in any other shed or factory."

The appellants cited various rulings of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India and this Tribunal before the Collector (Appeals) in support of their plea that things permanently fixed to the ground became immovable property and hence ceased to be goods. The learned Collector (Appeals) distinguished these rulings on the ground (1) that goods involved in these rulings were plant and machinery, lifts, elevators and escalators etc. while the goods involved before him were cranes, a different product; and (2) it was possible to dismantle and move the cranes elsewhere. The learned Collector (Appeals) also justified inclusion of erection,' installation and commissioning charges on the ground that the Supreme Court