TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases, along with bare frames manufactured by them) are to be charged to duty, as they were integral and essential products of their machines.... as alleged in show cause notice dated 20-4-1988 and demanding duty of Rs. 5,50,263.82 as well as penalty, both under Rule 9(2). 3. Shri M. Kunhi Kannan, ld. DR reiterates the grounds of appeal of Revenue which, inter alia, proposes that such supply/clearances of these boughtout items at the customer s site amounts to manufacture of complete machines (under 84.45) ring frames (spinning)/ring frames (doubling) and prays for restoration of order-in-original confirming above noted duty and imposing penalty of Rs. 9000.00. He submits that though boughtout items were charged separately through invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cites :- (a) Board s Circular No. 17/89, dt. 25-4-1989 (b) Board s Circular No. 16/89 (c) Board s Circular No. 25/89, (d) Tata Robin Frast Ltd. v. Collector, 1990 (46) E.L.T. 562 (T) (e) CCE v. Permali Wallace Ltd., 1985 (21) E.L.T. 231 (f) Punjab Breweries Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1985 (2) E.L.T. 231 (sic) (g) Indian Oil Corporation v. C.C.E., 1987 (27) E.L.T. 482 (h) New India Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1994 (73) E.L.T. 723 (i) Paramount Centrispun Castings v. C.C.E., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 705. Affirmed by Supreme Court in 1996 (83) E.L.T. A176. (j) Dharamsi Moraji Chemical Co. v. C.C.E., 1996 (86) E.L.T. 538 (Tri.). (k) ICI India Ltd. v. Commissioner - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 347 (T) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) has not erred in following the ratios of the Board s circulars and the case-laws on boughtout items. (v) The law with respect to status of boughtout items is now well settled to the effect that boughtout items installed at Customer s premises are not included in value of excisable goods cleared from manufacture s factory. We, therefore, respectfully apply the ratio of the nine decisions cited by ld. Advocate and find that on this count also, there is no merit in the Revenue appeal. The decision of 1985 cited by ld. DR is at best a stray decision and in view of the plethora of later decisions to the contrary noted above, needs to be ignored, particularly, as Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed appeal against 1988 (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
