1992 (5) TMI 119 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

The dispute involved the includibility of the value of Canopy in the value of tractors manufactured by the appellants. The appellants argued that the Canopy was a non-essential accessory and should not be included in the assessable value of the tractors. The Delhi High Court's judgment supported this argument, stating that such accessories are not necessary components of the tractors. The tribunal allowed the appeal, following the Delhi High Court's decision, and set aside the orders of the lower authorities.