Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2003 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (10) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Whether the value of certain dental equipments and hand-pieces of a dental chair should be added to the assessable value of the dental chair manufactured and cleared by the assessee.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, involved a case where the appellants were manufacturing dental equipments and dental chairs. The issue at hand was whether the value of certain dental equipments and hand-pieces imported by the appellant should be included in the assessable value of the dental chairs. The appellant argued that as the hand-pieces were never assembled or fitted to the dental chair and were sold separately or along with the chair in their packed condition, their value should not be added to that of the dental chair.

The Tribunal noted that the hand-pieces supplied by the appellant were not assembled or fitted into the dental chair during manufacturing. These hand-pieces, including a digital pulp tester, were self-contained and supplied to dentists separately as and when required, even independent of the supply of the chairs. It was observed that the supply of these hand-pieces constituted a trading activity, as no manufacturing activity was undertaken by the assessee in connection with these hand-pieces.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the precedent set by the decision of the Tribunal in Tata Telecom Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, where a similar issue was addressed. The Tribunal concluded that since no manufacturing activity was involved in relation to the hand-pieces, their value could not be added to the assessable value of the dental chairs. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between manufacturing activities and trading activities when determining the assessable value of goods, particularly in cases involving the importation and sale of components or accessories related to a manufactured product.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates