1992 (6) TMI 128 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of special testing charges in the assessable value of transformers.
2. Time-barred demand of excise duty.
3. Overlapping of duty demands.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Inclusion of Special Testing Charges
The case involved manufacturers of transformers who charged special testing fees not included in the assessable value. The appellants argued that these tests were post-manufacturing and not essential for marketability. They contended that charges for special tests should not be part of the assessable value. The JDR argued that these charges enhance the value of goods and should be included based on the Supreme Court's judgment regarding after-sale-service charges. The Tribunal referred to a similar case and ruled that charges for special tests should not be included in the assessable value as the goods were marketable without them.

Issue 2: Time-Barred Demand
The appellants claimed that the demand for duty was time-barred, as the department was aware of the charges for special tests since at least October 1983. The show cause notice issued in July 1988 covered a period beyond the statutory time limits. The Tribunal agreed that the demand for duty was time-barred for the period before July 1983 and partially within time for a specific period. However, this finding was deemed academic due to the ruling on the first issue.

Issue 3: Overlapping of Duty Demands
The appellants also raised the concern of overlapping duty demands in the impugned order. The JDR suggested remanding the matter to lower authorities if necessary. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue in the judgment.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that charges for special testing should not be part of the assessable value of transformers. They also found the demand for duty to be time-barred for certain periods. The judgment did not address the issue of overlapping duty demands.