9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from others, and until 1-11-1988, included items that were necessary for the erection and installation of these machines. It is stated by the Counsel for the appellant that these dyeing machines, after being assembled out of these components, were tested for proper performance and thereafter dismantled for ease of transportation to the customer s premises where they were again assembled and erected. These machines are stated to be more than 10 metres in length. By its letter of 1-11-1988, it informed the jurisdictional Superintendent as follows : For Jet Dyeing Plant/equipment we have been paying excise duty for despatches up to 22-8-1988 on all items manufactured by us, bought out items in assembled condition and bought out items sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not constitute a component part of the machine itself, but were only required for erection in the customer s premises. The cost of such parts is not to be included in the value according to settled law. It is no doubt settled law that the cost of charges subsequent to manufacture of an excisable commodity including those relating to erection or commissioning are not includible in the value of that commodity; accordingly the cost of those items which are not parts of such machine, but are only items required for setting up or installation would not be included. A reading of the appellant s letter however makes it amply clear that that is not what it says. It says, very clearly, that the cost of bought out items which are supplied by it in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the same reason, that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The letter of the appellant that we have noted, conveys an impression different from what we are now told it intent to include. It is not for the department s officials to gather a meaning that the Counsel says that was meant to convey contrary to the plain reading of the letter. However, we take note of the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that it will be able to demonstrate that from the RT 12 returns and other documents, that the facts of the case had been brought to the departmental officers. 5. The matter therefore will have to be re-examined both on merits as well as on limitation. 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
