9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-7-1991 Collector (Appeals), Jaipur disposed of three Appeals filed by the present Appellants against three adjudication orders, all dated 19-9-1990, confirming three duty demands for three different periods. 3. Facts: Appellants are manufacturers of Transmission Line Tower parts falling under Tariff Heading 7303.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They filed price lists for approval of assessable value for levy of Central Excise duty chargeable on ad valorem basis. Scrutiny of contracts entered into by the appellants with their buyers showed that the contract provided for payment of testing charges by the buyers in addition to the price of fabricated material of transmission parts. In the price lists submitted by the appellants to the Asst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot cleared from their factory in marketable form and also that they were not put to any other use other than the testing process in the factory. (b) `destruction test was not a normal condition in their contracts with their customers. This condition was inserted in the contract at the request of some customers only, for example, NTPC. Separate invoices in relation to such Tests were raised only in relation to those customers for whom such tests were specifically conducted. It was, therefore, not correct according to appellants to allege (as has been done in the SCN) that the activity of testing the strength of manufactured product enriched the value of the product. The additional charges viz. costs of testing `model transmission tower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the question for consideration was not in relation to charging of duty on the model transmission tower erected for purpose of testing or as to whether they were movable property or not, but whether the cost of erection of the model which is eventually destroyed by testing should be added to the value of the product ordered by the customer. The test served the purpose of clearly ascertaining the strength and quality of the excisable goods to be supplied to the customer. There was no doubt that the destruction test further demonstrated its quality to the satisfaction of the customer in addition to the standard quality supplied to other customers and thereby enriched its value. Such tests were a pre-condition for the sale of the tower to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional testing charges for additional tests carried out at the instance of the buyer had been settled by the Tribunal decision in Shree Pipes Ltd. v. C.C., reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 which was confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal had in that case held that additional tests conducted at the instance of the buyer and the charges incurred for such additional tests will not be included in the assessable value. This decision was followed by the Tribunal in C.C.E. v. Shree Pipes Ltd. reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 94. 8. We are of the view that the ratio of the said decisions are clearly applicable to the facts of this case. Following the case law cited above, we find that the dispute presently before us is covered in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
