TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Gajendra Jain, Advocate for Appellant Shri M.R. Melvin, Superintendent (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of final product namely cetylene Gas Generator . While clearance of the said product to the site of the customer. Certain bought out items are also sent to the site for the purpose of erection and installation. The case of the department is that the value of such accessories which are sent for erection and installation at site should be included in the assessable value of Acetylene Gas Generator . 2. Shri Gajendra Jain, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue was settled by this Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of removal of the said goods, whereas the order-in-original says the assessee had manufactured Acetylene plant at the site of the customers by assembling the Acetylene Gas generator along with the bought out items . The Commissioner (Appeals) holds that the lower authority traversed beyond the show cause notice. He further observes that the bought out items were supplied at the plant directly, On merits he observes that the bought out items were supplied along with the manufactured goods, in which event the value of such bought out items cannot be added to the assessable value of the finished goods. He relies on the case of PSI Data System Ltd. Vs. CCE [1997 (89) ELT 3 (SC)]. 3. The Revenue's grounds in appeal are tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the case on merits and held that the value of bought out items cannot be added to the assessable value of Acetylene generator as such items are supplied at the site where the plant (Acetylene Plant) is erected. 7. The appeal of the Revenue is based on the findings of the lower original authority, which were held to be beyond the allegation made in the show cause notice. The Revenue s appeal seeking to restore that order cannot be accepted. The case law cited by the Ld. SDR (Narve Tulman Manufacturers (P) Ltd. M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills etc.) are not relevant. 8. Appeal is rejected. From the above order, it is observed that the issue is identical and the Tribunal considered the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
