2000 (5) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Whether the Appellants are manufacturing Fire Alarm System falling under heading No. 85.31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, to include the cost of bought out item supplied directly to site and installation and commissioning charges.

Analysis:

Manufacturing of Fire Alarm System:
The appeal raised the issue of whether the Appellants were manufacturing Fire Alarm System falling under a specific heading of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Appellants argued that they were not manufacturing all component parts, as some were purchased from the open market and supplied directly to customers. They highlighted that the installation, commissioning, and testing activities were distinct from their manufacturing process. The Appellants emphasized that the fire alarm system did not come into existence at their factory and that the value of bought-out items should not be included in the manufactured component parts. They relied on a previous decision to support their argument that installation and commissioning activities do not amount to manufacturing.

Time Limitation and Disclosure:
The Appellants contended that the demand for duty was time-barred as they had not suppressed any facts from the Department. They provided details of their turnover, including bought-out items, in their communications with the Department. They argued that the extended period of limitation should not apply as they had disclosed all relevant information to the authorities. The Appellants maintained that the Department was aware of their activities, and therefore, the demand for duty should be considered time-barred under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.

Assessable Value and Inclusion of Bought-Out Items:
The Department argued that the Fire Alarm System could not be completed without bought-out items, and therefore, their value should be included in the assessable value. They referred to the Explanatory Notes of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature to support their position. The Department contended that the bought-out items were essential for the functioning of the fire alarm system and should be considered part of the overall value. They cited previous decisions where the value of components fitted at the site was included in the assessable value of the final product. The Department highlighted that the Appellants were contractually obligated to provide a complete fire alarm system, which necessitated the inclusion of bought-out items in the assessment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that the Appellants were only manufacturing signaling items of the fire/burglar alarm system, not the detecting parts. It was noted that a fire alarm system did not come into existence at the factory of the Appellants, and the system as installed could not be considered a marketable good. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, stating that the value of bought-out items should not be included in the total value of clearance. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed with the Appellants that the demand for duty was time-barred as they had disclosed their activities and turnover details to the Department. Consequently, the appeal was allowed both on merit and time-limit, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised in the case.