1996 (10) TMI 269 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to produce original order passed by Assistant Collector.
2. Refund claim for duty paid on bought out items and design charges.
3. Challenge to the order of Collector (Appeals) setting aside Assistant Collector's decision.
4. Interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act regarding review of refund orders.
5. Inclusion of value of bought out items and design charges in the assessable value.
6. Invocation of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act.
7. Timing of the order under Section 35E(3) and addition of design charges to assessable value.

Analysis:

1. The appellants failed to produce the original order passed by the Assistant Collector, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the case facts.

2. The appeal involved a refund claim for duty paid on bought out items and design charges under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector allowed the refund claim, which was challenged by the Collector (Appeals) leading to the current appeal.

3. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order and allowed the appeal, prompting the appellants to challenge this decision.

4. The appellants argued that the refund order could only be reviewed within six months under Section 11A of the Act, and contended that bought out items were not manufactured by them. However, the Collector (Appeals) disagreed and included the value of bought out items and design charges in the assessable value.

5. The appellants acknowledged that bought out items became integral parts of the machinery manufactured by them, leading to the conclusion that their value should be included in the assessable value.

6. The invocation of Section 35E of the Act was contested by the appellants, claiming it could not be applied retroactively. However, the Tribunal held that Section 35E did not restrict its application to orders passed after its incorporation in 1982.

7. The timing of the order under Section 35E(3) was found to be within the prescribed period, and the addition of design charges to the assessable value was deemed justified as they related to the manufactured machinery.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no valid grounds to interfere with the Collector (Appeals) decision and dismissed the appeal accordingly.