Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (8) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ared; the classification of the excisable goods manufactured by the appellants is also not mentioned. In the absence of this cogent evidence, it cannot be established that the equipment manufactured by the appellant is incomplete and cannot work independently without the bought-out items in question. The show-cause notice or the impugned order do not make it clear as to why only 4 out of 103 bought-out items were considered for inclusion in the assessable value of the systems said to have been manufactured by the appellant; the only reason cited was that the systems as well as the bought-out items were cleared under the same invoice; it is not clear as to how, in such circumstances, other items, than the 4 discussed, are not considered f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs of Anti Evasion Wing visited the premises of the appellants on 13.04.2009 and observed that there are some violations including that the appellants are not including the value of certain bought out items in the assessible value of the goods cleared by them; the appellants deposited Rs.20 Lakhs during the investigation. A show-cause notice dated 01.04.2010 was issued demanding duty of Rs.40,36,615/- along with the applicable Cess, interest and penalties. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty; on an appeal filed, Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order dated 29.03.2012, the impugned order, reduced the duty after allowing cum-duty benefit and confirmed duty demand of Rs.35,29,617/-; the appellants accepted the dut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stem is incomplete without the said bought out items is wrong; the appellant supplies the manufactured goods along with bought out items purchased from the market; the appellant does not subject the bought out items to any manufacturing process; the activity does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He relies upon the following cases: BREW FORCE MACHINES PVT. LTD. -2016 (333) E.L.T. 468 (Tri. - Del.) CC VS VOLTAS LTD.- 2006 (196) E.L.T. 358 (Tri. - Mumbai) AIR CONTROL CHEM. ENGG. CO. LTD- 2005 (181) E.L.T. 242 (Tri. - Mumbai) INTELLICON PVT. LTD.- 2014-TIOL-1231-CESTAT-AHM KORES (INDIA) LTD.- 2014-TIOL-167-CESTAT-MUM. SUR IRON STEEL CO. (P) LTD.- 2018 (363) E.L. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... service equipment system manufactured and cleared by the appellant. It is the contention of the appellants that they are manufacturing service lift, service panel, tool trolley and fabricated structures etc. that are used by two-wheeler service stations; the appellant s claim that as per the request of the customers, they are purchasing the bought-out items and supplying the same along with bought out items. Whereas, they are purchasing and supplying 103 bought out items, the Department proposes to include the value of 4 items as cited above. The Department relies on the statements of experts in the field, however, the said experts were categorical in stating that the equipment sold by the appellants function independently and do not depend .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rized the appellants to supply the equipment and tools as per the practice with other suppliers also. We find that nothing is coming forth from the statement of Shri Maheswari to prove that the tools are accessories supplied by the appellants, as bought-out items, are essential for the functioning of the excisable goods supplied by them. The show-cause notice or the impugned order do not make it clear as to why only 4 out of 103 bought-out items were considered for inclusion in the assessable value of the systems said to have been manufactured by the appellant; the only reason cited was that the systems as well as the bought-out items were cleared under the same invoice; it is not clear as to how, in such circumstances, other items, than th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates