Wipro Wins Excise Battle: CESTAT Upholds Transaction Value for Laptops Supplied to Govt Undertaking for Student Scheme [Read Order]
The activity of ELCOT—procuring laptops for free distribution to school students on behalf of the government—does not constitute a 'service industry' as contemplated in the definition of an 'Institutional Consumer'.
![Wipro Wins Excise Battle: CESTAT Upholds Transaction Value for Laptops Supplied to Govt Undertaking for Student Scheme [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/11/03/2101786-wipro-cestat-taxscan.webp "Wipro Wins Excise Battle: CESTAT Upholds Transaction Value for Laptops Supplied to Govt Undertaking for Student Scheme [Read Order]")
The Chennai Regional Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed an appeal filed by Wipro Ltd., setting aside a demand for differential excise duty. The bench upheld the transaction value for Laptops Supplied to Govt Undertaking for Student Scheme. The appeal challenged an order that upheld a demand for duty on 4,661 laptops supplied by Wipro...
The Chennai Regional Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed an appeal filed by Wipro Ltd., setting aside a demand for differential excise duty. The bench upheld the transaction value for Laptops Supplied to Govt Undertaking for Student Scheme.
The appeal challenged an order that upheld a demand for duty on 4,661 laptops supplied by Wipro to ELCOT (Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd.) between July and December 2012. The core issue was whether the excise duty on the laptops should be assessed based on the 'transaction value' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, as adopted by Wipro, or on the higher 'Retail Sale Price' (RSP) under Section 4A, as demanded by the Revenue.
The Revenue contended that since ELCOT was a government undertaking, it qualified as an 'Institutional Consumer', and therefore the provisions of Section 4A, mandating RSP-based assessment, were applicable. It was an undisputed fact that the laptops were to be issued to school students free of cost.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
Counsel for Wipro argued that ELCOT was not an 'Institutional Consumer' and relied on a precedent of the CESTAT Principal Bench in the case of PG Electroplast Ltd.
A two member bench comprising Mr. P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) agreed with the appellant's counsel. The Tribunal held that the activity of ELCOT—procuring laptops for free distribution to school students on behalf of the government—does not constitute a 'service industry' as contemplated in the definition of an 'Institutional Consumer'. It noted that such distribution is not a commercial activity. Consequently, as ELCOT was neither an 'Institutional Consumer' nor an 'Industrial Consumer', the provisions of Section 4A were not attracted.
Finding that Wipro was correct in assessing the duty on the transaction value, the CESTAT set aside the demand upheld by the lower authorities and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
