TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hacko, Member (J)]. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the short question to be considered is whether the cost of battery bought out from the local market and cleared as part of UPSS (Uninterrupted Power Supply System) from the Branch Offices/Sales Offices of the respondent-company during the period of dispute (April 2000 to August 2001) was liable to be included in the assessable value of the UPSS. The original authority held that the cost of battery was includible in the assessable value, but the first appellate authority set aside that decision and held to the contra. The Revenue is aggrieved by this decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Upon examination of records, we note that UPSSs without battery were cleared from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. 1202 (Tri-Che)] In all the cases cited by the JCDR, complete UPS system including battery bought out from the market was cleared from the factory and the cost of battery was held to be includible in the assessable value of the UPSS. 2. Learned JCDR has also shown us copies of a few invoices/bills issued by the respondent from their branch office to various customers. These invoices describe UPSS with battery as one complete commodity and also indicate that trade tax was paid @ 5% on the said commodity. The endeavour of the learned JCDR is to show that the assessee themselves treated battery as an integral and indispensable part of UPSS. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, submits that a decision rendered by this T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extension of factory. It was also not alleged in the show-cause notice that manufacturing activities were undertaken in the branch offices. 4. We note that, in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that the bought-out item (battery) never came to the factory and the same was sold from depot . Thus the Commissioner (Appeals) preferred to assess UPSS in the form it was cleared from the factory. The above finding of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not been specifically challenged in this appeal. 5. Moreover, the case sought to be made out by the Revenue in this appeal is not forthcoming in the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice nowhere alleged that the branch offices of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate authority has not been challenged. Therefore, we are of the view that the earlier decisions cited by the learned JCDR, wherein complete UPSS with battery included was found to have been cleared from the factory, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, in this case, the item cleared from the factory was UPSS without battery. The place of clearance was the factory. There is no allegation to the contra in the show-cause notice. The goods should be assessed in the form it was cleared from the factory. The Tribunal s decisions in other cases of the same assessee, wherein battery was an integral part of the UPSS in the form it was cleared from the factory, cannot be applied to this case. In this connection, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
