TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee) preferred the appeals before the Tribunal against a common order dated 31-3-1997 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (in short the, 'Commissioner'). The issues involved in the appeals were (a) the valuation of "packaged type Air-Conditioner" and (b) whether the extended period of limitation is invokable in demanding duty. The basic facts in a nutshell are as follows:- 2. The respondent is engaged inter alia in the manufacture of, inter alia, package type Air-Conditioners falling under Tariff Item No. 29-A of the erstwhile Tariff and Chapter heading No. 84.15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the 'Tariff Act'). According to the appellant, the respondent wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act') was invoked. After considering these submissions made by the respondent, these two show cause notices were adjudicated and duty demand of Rs. 12,20,936/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed in respect of first show cause notice. For the subsequent show cause notice a duty demand of Rs. 2,79,169/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed. Respondent preferred appeals before CEGAT. By a common order, CEGAT remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration with regard to valuation, rate of duty and limitation. On fresh adjudication on 31-3-1997 Commissioner noted that the respondent had wrongly filed the price list in Part I on the issue of valuation. Out of nine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to be demanded, the amount of penalty was to be worked out at the discretion of the Collector to be imposed. 5. In support of the appeals, Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned Sr. counsel submitted that PSI's case (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case. CEGAT even did not analyse the factual position and there was no discussion as to why the articles covered under various items were not to be reckoned to work at out the assessable value. It has also not been decided as to which of the items can be termed as "assessories" and which can be termed as "components". 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the CEGAT had taken into account the broad features and had rightly decided that the valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icle, of course, this may not also be a conclusive test but it is given by only way of illustration. It may be noted that some of the parts, in the case of a motor car like axle, steering, tyres, battery etc. are absolutely necessary accessories for the effective use of the motor vehicle. [See Mehra Brothers v. Joint Commercial Officer, Madras, '1991 (1) SCC 514}. 8. In the absence of any definition of the term "component parts" it is permissible to refer to the dictionary meaning of the word "component". According to the Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition the word 'component" inter alia means a constituent part. [See Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 21989 (4) SCC 724]. 9. By way of example, a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
