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

2014 (2) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the same is supplied separately from their trading unit situated within separately demarcated premises. In the case of National Radio and Electronics Co. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1995 (1) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] it was held that, if the bought out items are only optional and if there are instances where the item manufactured by the assessee was supplied without these bought out items as contended on behalf of the party then the value of such items is to be excluded. Further following the decision of Webel Telecommunications (I) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta (1987 (10) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) and Diamond Clock Manufacturing Co. Limited Vs. CCE, Pune (1987 (12) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re actually sold without even a single LCC thereby proving beyond doubt that the EPABX system was not only known as fully manufactured goods in the trade without LCCs but was being actually sold as such without LCC in the market. He relied upon the following case laws in support of his argument that the value of bought out LCC sold separately along with the manufactured EPABX system was not includible in the assessable value: (a) Webel Telecommunications (India) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta -[ 1987 (32) ELT 453 (Tribunal)]; (b) National Radio and Electronics Co. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - [1995 (76) ELT 436 (Tribunal)]; (c) Beaco Weir Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras - [199 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case of Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation that Battery is an integral and indispensable part of the UPS system and, accordingly, value of battery is to be included in the assessable value of UPS system. If it was purely optional whether cost of such optional item was to be included or not was not an issue in that case. Similarly issue with reference to optionality was neither raised nor considered in the cases referred to by the Departmental Representative in support of his contentions as it was rightly pointed out by Shri Hidayatullah. There may be conflicting decisions on the issue whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in determining the assessable value of the main product manufactured by the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tailed examination. The Jurisdictional Assistant Collector is directed to examine this issue with reference to the nature of contract between the parties and if the bought out items are only optional and if there are instances where the item manufactured by the assessee was supplied without these bought out items as contended on behalf of the party then the value of such items is to be excluded. The Assistant Collector is directed to pass an order on detailed examination after providing an opportunity to the party. 7.1 In the case of Webel Telecommunications (I) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta (supra), the Tribunal held as follows: 7. We have considered the arguments of both sides. We have perused the invoices .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... red by the appellants nor they are fitted into the machines before clearance. If this is the factual position and only incomplete machines are cleared from the Diamond s factory, the value of such parts supplied to customers by Anand Traders later should not be included. 7.3 We find that the appellants case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal. 8. In view of the above observations, the main appellants appeal No E/ 40/ 2006-DB is allowed by setting aside the Order in Appeal dated 29.06.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, Ahmedabad. 9. As the main appeal succeeds on merits, there is no point in imposition of on the other appellant. Accordingly, appeals filed by Shri Sameer Parekh, Sm .....

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