9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pped by the Commissioner of Central Excise - On the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned to find out whether the Revenue has filed any appeal against this order. The learned AR produced a communication from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, where it has been stated that the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise is accepted by the Revenue - the matter requires reconsideration by the Adjudicating authority afresh after taking into consideration the subsequent decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise - order set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication – Decided in favour of Assesssee. - E/41/09-Mum - - - Dated:- 20-6-2013 - S S Kang And P K Jain, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. The appellants submitted that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order admitted the fact that the bought out items procured from outside consist of compressors, blowers, line pipes, line valves, filters, structurals, hoppers etc. As the pneumatic system is not marketable as such hence not excisable, therefore the value of bought out times cannot be added to the value of the parts manufactured by the appellants. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2000 (120) ELT 273(SC), to submit that the marketability test requires that the goods as such should be in a position to be taken to the market and sold. In the present case the who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parts and components. 6. The appellants also argued that the capital goods manufactured in the factory, which are further used in the factory, are exempted from payment of duty by Notification No.67/95-CE. 7. The Revenue relied upon the findings of the lower authority and submitted that the appellants received the order to set up pneumatic handling system on turnkey basis and the appellants manufactured certain parts and procured from the market and set up the system. The appellants also issued an invoice inrespect of the total consideration amount for supply of the system as per the purchase order hence it cannot be said that the appellants are only liable to pay duty in respect of the parts manufactured in the factory. 8. In respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parts manufactured by the appellants, which are cleared on payment of appropriate duty. 10. We find that the case of the Revenue is that the appellants cleared conveying system in CKD condition. We find from the record that there is no evidence to show that the items procured from the market were taken to the factory and cleared with the manufactured parts. Further we find that there is no finding in the impugned order regarding the excisability of the conveying system as a whole. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mil India (supra) held that the value of bought out items should be added for computing assessable value would depend on the facts of each case. We also find that for the subsequent period, the demand of duty which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
