1993 (4) TMI 149 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay
- Interpretation of Tribunal's Order No. 36/1989-A and its confirmation by the Supreme Court
- Inclusion of foot rest value in computing the assessable value of scooters
- Remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority for duty calculation

Analysis:

The judgment involves an appeal filed by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Pune against the Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The appellant contended that the issue had been previously decided by the Tribunal in Order No. 36/1989-A, dated 9th August, 1989, and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1290 of 1990, dated 23-11-1992. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's Order should now be deemed as the order of the Supreme Court. The dispute primarily revolved around 5 Show Cause Notices and the total duty demanded. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs in response to the Tribunal's directions. The appellant emphasized that duty calculation should be based on actual clearances made by them, as per the Tribunal's upheld decision.

The Tribunal, comprising S/Shri Harish Chander and Lajja Ram, examined the facts and circumstances of the case. They reiterated the observations made in the Tribunal's previous Order No. 36/1989-A, particularly regarding the essential nature of foot rests in scooters. The Tribunal emphasized that foot rests are integral for comfortable seating on the pillion seat and should be included in the assessable value of scooters. They directed the revenue authorities to recalculate the duty based on actual clearances of foot rests, modifying the original order accordingly. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the civil appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

In light of the above, the Tribunal accepted the request for remand made by the respondent's representative, Shri Prabhat Kumar. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for the computation of duty in accordance with the Tribunal's decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The adjudicating authority was instructed to adhere to principles of natural justice, provide a personal hearing, and complete the re-adjudication within 3 months from the receipt of the order. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, setting aside the impugned Order and granting the jurisdictional adjudicating authority the task of recalculating the duty payable.