1989 (8) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the foot rest is an essential part or an accessory of the scooter.
2. Whether the value of the foot rest should be included in the assessable value of the scooter.

Summary:

Issue 1: Essential Part or Accessory
M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. contended that the foot rest is an accessory, not an essential part of the scooter, as the scooter can run without it. They cited a Government of India, Ministry of Industry letter dated 27th November 1969, which prohibited selling foot rests as an integral part of the scooter. The Assistant Collector accepted this view, stating that the foot rest is not essential and withdrew the show cause notices. However, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) relied on the Bombay Motor Vehicle Rules, considering the foot rest an essential fitment, thus including its value in the scooter's assessable value.

Issue 2: Inclusion in Assessable Value
The appellants argued that the foot rest, cleared separately after paying Central Excise duty u/s Tariff Item 68, should not be included in the scooter's assessable value. They cited various judgments supporting that accessories, which are not essential for the primary function of an article, should not be included in its assessable value. The respondent countered by citing practices in the Kanpur Collectorate and relevant case laws, arguing that the foot rest is essential and its value should be included.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal examined both sides and concluded that the foot rest is an essential part of the scooter based on common trade parlance, not considering the Bombay Motor Vehicle Rules or the Ministry of Industry's letter. The Tribunal directed that the value of the foot rest should be included in the assessable value of the scooter but only based on actual clearances made by the appellants, not on the total number of scooters manufactured. The appeal was otherwise rejected except for this modification.