2018 (3) TMI 95 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - includibility - bought out items known as BPL Kits - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of M/s TGL Enterprises Pvt Ltd Versus Principal CCE, Delhi And (Vice-Versa) 2018 (1) TMI 108 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that there is no BPL Kit commercially known and marketed. The clearances made by the appellant-assessee to the various clients as per their requirement are not any new manufactured product, commercially identifiable as BPL Kit. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Cross appeals filed by the appellant and the Department against the order in original regarding duty demand on BPL Kits and computation of the period for SSI exemption.

Analysis:
The case involved cross appeals filed by the appellant and the Department against the duty demand on BPL Kits supplied to BPL households. The appellant procured these kits from nodal agencies for distribution. The Department demanded duty on the items in the kits, leading to the appeals. Additionally, the Department filed an appeal regarding the computation of the period for Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption. The Tribunal analyzed the case considering a similar issue in a previous judgment.

The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was established that merely assembling various items does not constitute manufacturing a new excisable item. The Revenue argued that the assembly process by the appellant amounted to manufacturing, but the Tribunal disagreed. It noted that the items in the BPL Kits were not assembled to create a new identifiable product. The kits were not a standard commercially identifiable item in the market, and the assembly was done as per client requirements, not for creating a new product.

The original authority had partially upheld the duty demand, considering the mounting of electrical components on boards as manufacturing. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the components did not lose their identity or create a new product after assembly. The mounted components retained their original name, character, and use. The Tribunal found no evidence that the assembled kits were commercially known and marketed as a new product. Therefore, it concluded that the appellant did not manufacture any dutiable item during the material time.

Based on the detailed analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the appellant and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue. It set aside the impugned order and upheld the original authority's decision to drop the duty demand against the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant started manufacturing certain items from December 2013 and paid central excise duty accordingly. Ultimately, the appeal by the appellant was allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.