1998 (8) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Inclusion of price of spares in assessable value of wagons.

Analysis:
The appellant entered into a contract for supplying Railway Wagons and related spares to NTPC. The dispute arose regarding the inclusion of the price of capital spares, mandatory spares, and special tools in the assessable value of the wagons. The Collector (Appeals) had approved the price list, directing the inclusion of these items in the assessable value. However, the Tribunal found that the grounds for such inclusion were not adequately supported. The contract clearly specified the supply of wagons, capital spares, mandatory spares, and special tools separately. The Tribunal noted that while duty was payable on the wagons, the spares should not be considered part of the assessable value unless they were manufactured by the appellant.

The Collector (Appeals) had argued that the spares were necessary for completing the wagons and thus should be included in the assessable value. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that there was no basis for such assertions in the show cause notice or the records. The contract clearly distinguished between the supply of wagons and spares, indicating that the responsibility for maintenance and replacement of defective parts lay with the buyer, not the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty should only be paid on items manufactured by the appellant, not on purchased or imported spares.

Regarding the "mandatory spares" and special tools and equipment, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the lower authorities' reasoning for including their prices in the assessable value. The Tribunal highlighted that the responsibility for maintenance by the buyer did not justify such inclusion. The show cause notice lacked justification for including these items in the assessable value as well. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the prices of mandatory spares and special tools and equipment should not be considered part of the assessable value of the wagons. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on the inclusion of mandatory spares in the assessable value, ensuring due process for the appellant. The appeal was allowed based on these findings.