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

1999 (2) TMI 135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s for installation of cooling towers. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ahmedabad had observed that no duty was chargeable on the bought out parts purchased from the open market. He had also passed orders with regard to the classification of the goods manufactured by MEPL. He had classified the FRP air washers under sub-heading No. 8415.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The components FRP casings and FRP basins were classified under sub-heading No. 8419.00. This order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ahmedabad was reviewed by the Collector, Central Excise and an appeal was filed with the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) decided that the value of the entire quantity of compo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s had manufactured in their factory. He referred to the following decisions : (1) Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Friction Materials reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 685 (Tribunal) (2) Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar v. Radiant Electronics Ltd. reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 102 (Tribunal) (3) Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Recondo Ltd. reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 113 (Tribunal) = 1998 (76) ECR 312 (Tribunal). 3. In reply Shri N. Shiv Kumar, JDR submitted that orders were placed with the appellants for supply of cooling towers. They supplied the cooling towers under their own brand name. He submitted that the case law relied upon by the appellants was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. We h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g and erection jobs, the entire structure of the cooling towers fastened to the earth comes into existence and becomes a immovable property. They had represented that they did not have any machinery for manufacturing cooling towers or any other components thereof except FRP casings and FRP basins. 6. It appears clear from the facts on record that although the appellants had orders for erection of cooling towers, only two parts were manufactured by them. The bought out items were not subjected to any process of manufacture and they were fitted only at the site of the customers. 7. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ahmedabad, the adjudicating authority had observed that the MEPL were manufacturing only certain parts and not a compl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... PL. The rest of the parts were bought out items. These were brought in the factory premises for testing the functional accuracy. Thereafter all these bought out items along with the goods manufactured by M/s. MEPL were sold to the customers concerned. Only on the ground that orders placed by the customers were for the cooling towers and not for the individual parts, it was argued that the sale was of the cooling towers in unassembled or disassembled condition. 8. In the grounds of appeal, reference has been made to the Rules for interpretation of the tariff in support of the contention that when parts of the cooling towers were removed from the premises of the appellants, it was the removal of the cooling towers in unassembled or disassem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... components and they are not used in the factory in relation to manufacture of the goods. The appellant s factory is also not capable of testing them or assembling then even for trial purposes. The goods are purchased and collected at one place, only for ease of transport and proper accounting. Such bought out components are never subjected to any process or testing or trial within the factory. When there is no manufacture, the question of applying the Rules of Interpretation also does not arise. 9. We therefore, consider that the ld. Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) had not been able to substantiate the case for inclusion of the cost of the bought out parts while determining the duty liability of the appellants. We also find that the .....

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