9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 3 to 6 of his order which are reproduced below : 3. The brief facts here are that the appellant are manufacturers of CVCF power supply system (UPS system) of Chapter 85 which attracts duty of 10% ad valorem. One of the inputs for the above system is batteries which are imported. On verification of the clearance documents for the period September, 1994 to November, 1994, the department noticed that the appellants had cleared 138 numbers of batteries valued at Rs. 10,17,536/- on payment of duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem claiming the same as Components of UPS system , and cleared 21 numbers of batteries valued at Rs. 9,45,000/- in the second appeal whereas it was felt that it was only removal of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies were housed in a metal cabinet with provision for interconnecting cables and insulated materials so that the batteries could be fitted to the UPS system already supplied. The appellants have therefore argued that the provisions of rule 57F(1) will not be applicable in their case since the batteries were not removed as such but only as a component. 5. I find force in the above plea. From the copies of the installation/warranty certificate it is seen that most of the sales are only to the Govt. Departments/Organisation, Textile Commissioner s office, Municipal Corporation Department, Ministry of Home Affairs etc. It is seen there from that the date of installation is shown subsequent to the supply of the battery from which date the warr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be classified under heading 8504 as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is also contended that the fact remains that neither the batteries were attached to the UPS system nor they were packed together with the UPS. Therefore, classification has to be adopted in the manner in which the goods were removed at the time of its clearance. Therefore, Rule 57F(1)(ii) is applicable and duty will have to be paid on batteries and not as components. Reference is also made to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd v. UOI reported in AIR 1977 SC 597 = 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.), Punjab Brewers Ltd v. CCE reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 513 wherein it has been held that condition of the article at the time of remo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue s point that even if parts are separately removed on a subsequent occasion it has to be classified along with the main machine as it is part of the main item. The learned Counsel also referred to the letter dated 4-6-1994 issued by the Sudpt. of Central Excise, IV Division who has considered that batteries as component part of UPS system and added its value in the assessable value of UPS system. 5. In counter the learned DR distinguished the judgment in the case of KSEDC (supra) to submit that in that case, batteries had been supplied simultaneously with the UPS system and therefore, the Tribunal held that its value is required to be added to the assessable value. He submits that in this case, battery was removed after three mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
