9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d v. CCE, Ahmedabad, has held that imported/bought out articles supplied with own manufactured dental chairs is not required to be included in the assessable value of the final product. Dentail chair - Assessable vaue -The Revenue has no case that these hand-pieces equipments have been assembled or fitted into dentist chair - The supply of hand-pieces is only a trading activity - No manufacturing activity is undertaken by the assessee in connection with these hand-pieces, its value cannot be added to the assessable value of the dental chairs - The learned Counsel for the appellant has correctly placed reliance on the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in Tata Telecom Ltd. v. CCE. Cochin - Hence, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.” Demand and penalty - No infirmity in the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in setting aside the demand of duty and penalties imposed upon the respondents - Accordingly, appeals filed by the Revenue fail. - E/3412-3415/2005 - A/1841-1844/2010-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 9-11-2010 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.K. Mall, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Alok Bhartwal, Advocate, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a separate address. The said goods are issued as per the requirement of the customers and are assembled by their technicians at the customer s site. The value of the said goods is not included in the assessable value of the dental chair/unit. Shri Paresh Raval also informed that Corporation procured an order from Government Dental College Hospital, Asarwa, Ahmedabad and have supplied the chairs manufactured by them. He clarified that the chairs are supplied along with spittoon, tumbler, halogen light and tray, the value of which is included but the remaining attachments were supplied from their godown. 4. Statement of Shri Bharatkumar H. Soni, Technical Consultant of Corporation was recorded on 11-2-2000, wherein he agreed with the Panchnama contents and photographs taken by the officers as regards factory premises. 5. Statement of Shri Sandeep Patel, former Director of Pvt. Limited and now the partner of the Corporation was recorded on 16-2-2000. He also clarified that Corporation has procured an order for supply of dental chairs and the value of the parts are included whereas the value of the optional parts is not included. 6. On the above basis, Revenue entertained a vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principle basis and stands returned by the Corporation. For arriving at the above proposition, he relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal. 9. As against the above findings arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that Revenue in their memo of appeal have not contested the same on one to one basis. There is no rebuttal to the findings that Corporation has its own income tax, sales tax, import export code number and bank account dealings. It also does not stand contested by the Revenue in their memo of appeal that Corporation has secured orders in their own name from a Government Agency for supply of dental chairs/units. The dealings cannot be held to be benami, inasmuch as, one of the buyers is a Government agency. For the above purposes he has relied upon a Tribunal decision in the case of Geeta Valves Engg. (P) Limited v. CCE, Vadodara - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 672 (Tribunal) laying down that mere suspicion cannot substitute evidence for establishing the clubbing. He has also referred to various other decisions of the Tribunal as also the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Renu Tandon v. UOI - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 375 (Rajasthan) in support of his finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said statement does not stand disputed or rebutted by the Revenue by production of any evidence to the contrary. It is also well settled that statement of any person is required to be relied upon or rejected in its totality. Revenue cannot adopt a part of the statement in its favour and cannot reject the other part of the statement which is in favour of the assessee. Shri Sandeep Patel having clearly deposed that the goods were being manufactured in the Corporation, the finding of some common goods like air compressor, sprayer etc. in the second floor of the unit, by itself would not be a factor to hold against the assessee. 10. As regards the issue of inclusion of bought out items, it is undisputed fact on record that M/s. S. Nova Dental Corporation have imported spares and components of dental chair and the same were kept at their godown located elsewhere and were supplied directly from the godown to the buyers under the cover of commercial invoice. The same were not brought to the factory premises and no work or process was done on the same. The appellants have also produced on record the invoices showing that the chairs stands sold by them even without inclusion of such spare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
