TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin, dated 26-3-2002 and 30-4-2002 respectively. Since the issues arising for consideration in the above appeals are common we propose to dispose of the appeals under a common order. 2. Appellants are manufacturers of various parts and assemblies thereof for the Attendance Data Management Systems (ADAMS). Some of the parts for ADAMS are purchased by the appellant from outside and supplied along with the manufactured parts to the customers. Appellant was not including the value of the bought out items in the assessable value of ADAMS supplied to the customers. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants alleging that bought out items like uncoded cards, cables, junction boxes, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods manufactured by them. It is also contended that they have not availed Modvat credit of duty on the bought out items. Under these circumstances the appellant submits that they are not liable to pay duty on the bought out items. According to the appellants the ADAMS is not a single equipment or machinery but involves the integration of all the component parts through cable and accessories. Appellants manufacture only a few components and they clear them to the site of the customers on payment of duty. They buy uncoded cards, cables, junction boxes and software from others and clear them as such to the site of the customers. They do not fix or attach the bought out items to the components manufactured by them when they clear the compon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t integral parts of the traffic control unit supplied by the appellant, it was agreed by the assessee that the proceedings could be finalised giving them an opportunity to establish its contention in future proceedings. There was also a request for granting benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the components which are bought out as duty paid. The Tribunal accepted the above submission. The appeal was closed allowing the appellant to take Modvat credit. 6. After hearing both sides we find that in these proceedings also apart from contending repeatedly that bought out items are not integral part of ADAMS, the appellant has not adduced sufficient material in support of its contention. It is not sufficient to contend that their case is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding non-filing of the declaration subject to compliance with the other provisions of the Modvat Rules. We do not see any difficulty for the appellants to be able to lay their claim to the Modvat credit in respect of the bought out items since the lower authority has demanded duty in respect of those items as one entity. The appellants should approach the lower authority in this regard and stake their claim and the lower authority shall consider their claim in this regard notwithstanding non-filing of declaration, as we have held in several cases. 8. In the result, we dismiss Appeal E/618 and 837/2002. In respect of Appeal Nos. E/73 and 176/2002, we hold that the demand of duty on software cannot be sustained. The appeals stand disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
