9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Food Processors and other excisable goods was clearing food processors on payment of duty on the approved value. It appears that the price lists filed by the respondent did not mention sale of relay and rotary switches as spare parts or replacement of spare parts, supplied either free of cost or for consideration to wholesale dealers. These spare parts were not even mentioned in Column 6 of the classification list. Scrutiny of the RT-12s from April to July, 1993 and relevant invoices showed that value of such spare parts which were essential parts of food processors were not added in the value of the goods cleared, though, wherever price was charged, it was shown either in the same invoice or in separate invoice. Taking the tentative view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduct, duty had not been paid on the correct assessable value. The claim is that whenever replacement parts are supplied free of cost or spare parts are supplied at a price to wholesale dealers, the value of these parts should be included in the value of the food processors supplied earlier and differential duty paid. When the food processors were supplied, they were complete finished products and duty had been paid on the full value thereof, including those parts which had been used as the components of food processors. Subsequent supply of bought-out spare parts were either for replacement during warranty period or for use after warranty period. We fail to see how their value can be required to be added to the value of the complete produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and without paying duty. Further, the manufacturer had agreed before the Adjudicating Authority to discharge the duty liability. In view of this agreement, the Tribunal held that the contention raised before the Tribunal that duty would not be payable cannot be allowed to be urged. In other words, the Tribunal had no occasion to consider the question on its own merits, and declined to grant any relief to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had agreed before the Collector to discharge duty liability. In this view, we do not think the reported decision can be regarded as having laid down any principle of law contrary to what we have indicated. It is also clear that the supply of these bought-out spare parts was a part of trading a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
