TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere bought out items were supplied the invoices in one book was issued and then when manufactured tanks were cleared without bought out items invoices from another book was being issued by the accountant. On checking the description of goods in these invoices we have to say that this explanation is satisfactory. Further, merely because the invoices issued did not follow their sequential number it is not sufficient to hold that these are parallel invoices. The figures in these invoices tally with accounts. Further the department has investigated with the transporters M/s. Doors Transport Ltd. No discrepancy was detected. The allegation that appellant suppressed facts by issuing parallel invoices is factually wrong. Inclusion of value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered with the Central Excise department and were availing benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 1.03.2003. On intelligence received that the appellants were wrongly availing SSI benefit, a search was conducted in the manufacturing premises of the appellant, on 1.6.2004 in the presence of independent witness. The officers verified the stock of finished goods, semi finished goods and raw material and also conducted scrutiny of records. It was observed that appellants had cleared goods valued ₹ 1,71,03,560/- in 2002-03 and goods valued ₹ 1,42,76,801/-during the year 2003-04 and had crossed the limit for availing the benefit of the SSI exemption. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants raising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants for convenience of transportation dismantled the same after testing and then erected/installed in the premises of the customer. That the bought out items supplied being integral part of the tanks, the value is includible in the transaction value charged by the appellant. It is submitted by the learned counsel that appellants do not manufacture complete brewing plant but only parts of the plant i.e. storage tanks. These tanks are manufactured as per specifications provided in the purchase orders. The tanks are special tanks fitted with various appendages like agitators, having channel base of SS legs and specific design to enable it to be connected to huge network pipelines and other parts of brewery plant. Besides supply of tanks t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that appellants were clearing goods on parallel invoices and has suppressed facts. On taking into account the value of the goods cleared through these parallel invoices of bought out items, the value of clearances would cross the limit of SSI exemption and the appellants are therefore liable to pay the excise duty. The bought out items are supplied by the appellants and are essential part of the machinery/tanks and therefore the cost of such items is to be loaded in the price of manufactured goods. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records carefully. 5. At the outset it needs to be stated that even though a search was conducted in the manufacturi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this explanation is satisfactory. Further, merely because the invoices issued did not follow their sequential number it is not sufficient to hold that these are parallel invoices. The figures in these invoices tally with accounts. Further the department has investigated with the transporters M/s. Doors Transport Ltd. No discrepancy was detected. The allegation that appellant suppressed facts by issuing parallel invoices is factually wrong. 7. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the bought out items supplied by appellants are essential parts of manufactured goods and whether the value of such items is includible in the transaction value of the finished goods. 8. The gist of allegation in the show cause notice is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005 (192) ELT 620 (Tri.Chennai) where the issue involved was the valuation of flushing cistern manufactured by the assessee, who manufactured only ceramic portion. In order to make it functional bought out items like handle assembly, Ball valve assembly, over flow assembly, flush pipe assembly, etc. were fitted. It was held that value of bought out items is not includible in the assessable value of the cistern. This view was upheld by the Apex Court in the appeal filed by the department reported in CCE vs. Neycer India Ltd.-2015 (320) ELT 28 (SC). The said decision is applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. From the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
