1995 (1) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of the cost of bought electric motor and mandatory spares in the assessable value of vibrating feeders.
2. Inclusion of interest earned on advance payments in the assessable value of feeders.
3. Consideration of erection and commissioning charges in the assessable value of the machine/equipment.

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around whether the cost of the bought electric motor used by the respondents for the vibrating feeders should be included in the assessable value. The appellants argued that the motor was integral to the feeder and should be included. However, the respondents contended that since the motor was not physically integrated into the feeder, its value should not be included. The Tribunal referred to past judgments and emphasized that the value of bought out items should be excluded unless physically integrated. The matter was remanded for further examination.

2. The issue of whether interest earned on advance payments should be part of the assessable value was also debated. The appellants argued for inclusion, stating it influenced the sale price. However, the respondents disagreed, asserting that unless a direct nexus to the sale price was proven, it should not be included. The Tribunal cited a relevant judgment and directed a reevaluation by the lower authorities to establish the nexus between the advance and sale price.

3. Lastly, the consideration of erection and commissioning charges in the assessable value was contested. The appellants argued for inclusion, stating that all costs until completion should be included. Conversely, the respondents argued that post-manufacture expenses should not be included. Citing previous cases, the Tribunal highlighted the exclusion of post-manufacturing charges from the assessable value. The matter was remanded for further examination by the Assistant Collector, with a directive to grant a personal hearing to the respondents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for readjudication in accordance with the law, considering the observations made in the judgment. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough reevaluation of the issues raised.