2002 (2) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her contended that the price of the printers and the price of the drives in excess of one number has to be reduced from the gross sale price of the computer to arrive at the assessable value of the computers. 2.They were filling price lists both in part I and part II from time to time. Part II price lists were basically related to the purchase order/contracts entered into with customers for the supply of various items/computer systems. In the price lists the assessee were not showing the details regarding the peripheral items such as printers, drives, etc. The Assistant Commissioner order was that the price lists should include the value of all the additional peripheral items in the assessable value of the computer system supplied. The Collector (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal No 327/885, dt. 30-11-88 set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the case for de novo consideration. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore-I in his de novo Order No. 51/89, dt. 28-4-89/16-6-89 held that - (a) If there was a single contract for supply of computer including peripherals other hardware and software, the total value of the computer including that of ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to consideration Chapter Note 5(a) and 5(b) of the CETA, 1985 read with the description of Tariff item 8471. The Tribunal also observed that a view will have to be taken whether the goods cleared can be considered to be one entity for the purpose of levy in terms of Chapter Note 5(b) and 5(a); With respect to Modvat credit the Tribunal ruled that in case it is held by the Adjudicating Authority that the value of the peripherals etc., would be required to be included for arriving at the assessable value of the computer systems cleared as one entity then the assessees would be entitled to the Modvat credit in respect of the bought out items subject to the satisfaction of other requirements of law and remanded the case for de novo examination to the Original Authority. 5.Duty assessments for the period April, 1988 to March, 1991 were finalised vide OIO No. 50/96, dt. 27-2-96/29-3-96. As a result of finalisation of provisional assessment an amount of Rs. 4,36,19,004/- was demanded. Against the above cited decision the assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 29909/96 Hon'ble High Court disposed of their writ petition granting stay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey are connectable) whether they are packed separately or not at the time of clearance, whether the prices are mentioned separately for each unit in the purchase order/contract and whether the invoices are raised separately or not and whether the assessee have failed to follow certain procedures in this regard or not. (iii) No Modvat credit has been allowed to the assessee though it is admissible as they have not produced the duty paid documents with the details of credit admissible which is a pre-condition to allow Modvat credit based on the Tribunal order. 7.Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his OIA No. 1111/99, dt. 23-10-99 has set aside the OIO of Assistant Commissioner, Mysore-1 and allowed the assessee's appeal holding that the value of bought out peripherals is not includible in the assessable value of computers. Reliance was place by him on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) ORG Systems v. CCE, 1998 (102) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court considered their earlier judgment in the case of M/s. PSI Data Systems [1997 (89) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. (ii) A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be concluded that what was cleared was one whole system. Verification of the sample contracts/purchase order reveals that the order is placed for one Computer System consisting of various hardware including more than one item. The entire system has been referred to as one unit and in terms of Chapter Notes 5(a) & 5(b) of Chapter 84 they are classifiable as one system only. (e) CEGAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. CMS Computers (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 525 (Tribunal) = 1998 (29) R.L.T. 915 (T) has held that printers and monitors are not parts of computer but only accessories. However the department has not accepted the said decision and a Civil Appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court [2000 (118) E.L.T. A156.] against the said CEGAT Order No. C-II/2727/98 WZB dt. 24-11-98 (Ministry's F. No. 390/15/99-JC dt. 8-4-99). (f) In the assessee's own case the department has filed a Civil Appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court against CEGAT, Chennai's F.O. No. 3274 to 3282/97, dt. 10-12-97 [1998 (99) E.L.T. 343 (Tribunal)] (Misc. Order No. 416 to 424/99, dt. 9-4-99 vide C. No. IV/3/344/89 (Appeals), dt. 11-6-99). 9.We have heard both sides, considered the m....