9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Semi Automatic Document Handler (SADH) priced at Rs. 20,000/- each and installation kit priced at Rs. 11,500/- each treating them as essential component parts of photocopier machines. The appellant had cleared the photocopiers on payment of duty on the value excluding the value of such SADH and installation kit. They treated the former as an optional accessory supplied only against specific orders of Customers. As regards the second item, installation kit, which consists of Toner, Developer and Fuser Oil supplied in bottles and Photoreceptor drum, the appellant treated them to be consumable items and not component parts of photocopier contributing to its value. The Collector did not accept their plea in this regard and confirmed the deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exclusion of the value of photoreceptor drums in the value of photocopiers. In any case the extended time limit was not available to the department, Shri V. Sridharan concluded. 3. The argument was resisted by Shri Vipin Handa, Senior Departmental Representative. He contended that the longer period of limitation was correctly applied by the Collector as the communications referred to by the learned Counsel as having been addressed to the departmental officers regarding the supply of SADH and installation kits cannot be said to be disclosure of the necessary details. Thus, the letter of 31-8-1985 is seen to have been addressed to the Superintendent (Valuation) Central Excise, Meerut. He is not the authority to approve the price list. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prices charged by them. The former letter is addressed to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Range II, Rampur. Along with that letter the printed price list dated 1-2-1985 was enclosed wherein the retail price of Modi Xerox 1045 was shown as 1,33,500.00. The said price list also showed the price of accessories including SADH at Rs. 20,000/- and consumable kit at Rs. 11,500/-. The second letter of 31-8-1985 is addressed to the Superintendent (Valuation), Central Excise, Meerut. In this letter it was indicated that the price of the copier was Rs. 1,33,500/- and that they also invoice trading items/ non-excisable items, namely SADH Rs. 20,000/- and installation kit Rs. 11,500/-. It was further stated that SADH was supplied normally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lished. 5. The above position is also borne out by certain decisions which are on the merits of the issue. We refer to them only insofar as their impact on the question of applying the extended period of limitation is concerned. It has been contended that the appellant had earlier availed of proforma credit of countervailing duty paid on SADH for payment of duty on the photocopiers. The department objected to this and the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 8-8-1995 held such credit to be inadmissible. This will go to show that the department was aware of the appellant supplying SADH with photocopiers. When the department has thus held that proforma credit is not admissible in respect of SADH on the ground that it is not used in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he position is different from the stand taken by the appellant in respect of SADH which was claimed to be an optional accessory which was not essential for the functioning of the copier as copies can be taken from the copier without SADH also. Further, in the Tribunal decision referred to above which was taken on the ground that the copier was supplied from the factory without the drum which was supplied from outside separately, the question about its essentiality for the functioning of the photocopier was not considered. Certain other Tribunal decisions were cited before us by the Senior Departmental Representative wherein the assessees were held to be eligible for Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on such drums. There was no dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the show cause notice clearly indicates the fact of suppression. The Collector was in error in holding that the facts before him were distinguishable. In the judgments, the High Court had held that where a price list was filed in the form and manner prescribed under Rule 173C showing the price of goods, it cannot be said that there was contravention of that Rule even on the assumption that the information supplied thereunder was false in relation to the price so as to attract penalty under Rule 173Q. The Collector s finding that the appellant had declared that the fact that two different models, System I and System II were manufactured and that the price of critical components was not declared at all has to be viewed in the light of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
