Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (9) TMI 194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uring the period 9-4-1983 to 23-1-1984. The Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, who adjudicated the matter, came to a finding that the value of the items (1) Heavy duty axle, (2) Show Grill, (3) Hooks, (4) Rope Tightening Pipes, (5) Tipping Attachment, (6) Military Hook, (7) Hood, (8) Hukka, (9) Tool Box (10) Handles, fitted to the trailer, was includible in the assessable value of trailers, and ordered that the trailer fitted with any of the aforementioned items was to be assessed to duty after including the value of those items fitted to the trailer by the party. He, however, came to a finding that the blade harrow, blade leveller and blade etc. were agricultural implements and could not be considered as parts of trailers. The demand to the extent of Rs. 49,795.58 was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellants. 3. The matter was posted for hearing on 8-8-1994 when Smt. C.G. Lal, SDR appeared for the respondent. No one appeared for the appellants who had sought decision on merits and on the basis of their written submissions. 4. In the written submissions the appellants have contended that the various items mentioned in the order-in-origina .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpugned order has been added to the declared value of their trailers, were in the nature of accessories and additional fittings, and their value was not to be included in the value of the trailer. Whether any particular fitting or fixture is or is not a part of the goods which are the subject matter of assessment, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The term `accessory has been defined differently in different contexts. In Webster s 9th New Collegiate dictionary, `accessory has been defined as an object or device not essential in itself but adding to the beauty, convenience or effectiveness of something else. In Webster s New World Dictionary, it has been defined as equipment usually removable, replaceable for convenience, safety or completeness. It has also been referred to as an adjunct or accompaniment. It has also been mentioned as to mean a part, sub-assembly or assembly that contributes to the effectiveness of a piece of equipment without changing its basic functions (refer Tribunal decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilisers Ltd. v. CC, 1989 (40) E.L.T. 345 (Trib.). In the case of CC v. Jolly Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 61 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In the case of Ashok Leyland Limited, 1982 (10) E.L.T. 684 (GOI), the matter before the Government of India related to the value of specialised handling equipment like cab, tipping gear and steel body which was mounted on dumpers. Trailer is a vehicle but it is not a motor vehicle. Thus explanation II under Item No. 34 of the Tariff which relates to motor vehicle, will not be applicable to trailer. 11. The point regarding hood, tool box, and military hook, however, appears to be different. Hood is reported to be the protective cover of the driver of the tractor. Although as per the design of the trailer, it has an attendant s seat, but in this case it has been submitted that the hood is fixed to the tractor to protect the driver from sun and rain, and it was not meant for the attendant s seat of the trailer. The learned SDR appearing for the Revenue has admitted that the hood was not for the trailer but for the tractor. In such circumstances when the hood was not for the attendant s seat in the trailer but for the driver of the tractor, the value of the hood does not appear to be includible in the value of the trailer. As regards the tool box the appellants have stated that it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rated with the trailer. It is of no consequence that they were bought out items. In the case of Kerala State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, 1994 (71) E.L.T. 508 (Trib.), the Tribunal, with reference to the battery for the uninterrupted power supply system, had observed that the value of battery was includible in the assessable value of the uninterrupted power supply system, and that battery being bought out item, being exempted from duty and being invoiced to the customers separately by the assessee, was immaterial. In the case of Dayaram Metal Works (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 392 (Trib.) - also the Tribunal had held that the value of bought out parts was to be included in the value of clearances. 13. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Lawkim Pvt. Ltd., Thane - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 700 (Trib.), the thermal over load protectors, although were only devices, but when they were installed they were installed in such a way that they integrated into the system, and became part of the motor winding/rotor, stator set. By the majority decision it was held that over load protectors should have their values included in the assessable value of the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ludible in the value of the trailer; however, in respect of hood, tool box, and military hook, position appears to be different as already indicated above, and their value is not so includible. 17. With regard to limitation it is seen that the manufacturers were issuing separate invoices, and the details of these separate invoices were not disclosed to the Revenue. The Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Detergents and Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 323 (Trib.) in para 3(a) had observed as under :- ******* Reference may also be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Metal Box India Ltd. - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 679 (Trib.). Para 22 of that decision is extracted below :- ******* In the case of Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 104 (Trib.), the Tribunal had observed that non-disclosure of fact of receipt of excess payments from the customers being suppression of fact, extended period of limitation was invokable. 18. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we order that the value of (1) heavy duty axle, (2) show grill, (3) hooks, (4) rope tightening pipes, (5) tipping attachment, (6) hukka and (7 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates