TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve supplied the bought out items directly to the customer's premises where the furnace was erected by utilizing both the bought out items and the goods manufactured by them. The bought out items used in erection of the furnace makes it a part of the immovable property, after erection of the furnace. Hence, no excise duty can be charged on the supply of such bought out items - no excise duty can be charged on the supply of such bought out items. It is observed that after erection of the furnace, the bought-out items are part of the immovable property - the value of bought out items, which are traded goods of the Appellant, are not includable in the assessable value for the purpose of charging central excise duty. Accordingly, the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufactured items were includible in the assessable value of the Industrial Furnace without the said items the Industrial Furnaces were non-functional. The SCN was adjudicated by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2016 wherein the entire demand as proposed in the SCN was confirmed along with interest and penalty equivalent to the duty confirmed was imposed by invoking extended period of limitation. 3. The Appellant submits that the Ld, Adjudicating authority has erred in interpreting the agreements for supply and installation and commissioning of the industrial furnace at customer's premises as the same was a composite agreement. However, excise duty was payable on the supply of components manufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents cited supra. Accordingly, the Appellant contended that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable and prayed for setting aside the same. 6. The Appellant also submits that the extended period of limitation under section 11A(1) of the Act cannot be invoked in this case, as there is no fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade payment of duty on part of the Appellant. 7. The Ld. D.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 9. We observe that the issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether the value of the bought-out-items supplied directly to the customer's place are includible in the assessable value of the Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for which except the material used in making lattice mast no further bought out items are required. Therefore, the bought out items in any way not taking part in the manufacture of lattice mast. This issue has been considered in various judgments that if any bought out items are supplied along with manufactured items, the value of the sane cannot be included in the value of the manufactured goods and this issue has been considered in the following decisions:- (a) In the case of Unitech Power Transmission Limited (supra), the Mumbai bench of this Tribunal on the identical facts passed the following order:- 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the appellant is engaged in the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nger res-integra. Since we have decided the matter on merits, the other issues raised by the appellant are not taken up. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. 11. In the case of NEYCER INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY, IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI, 2005 (192) E.L.T. 620 (Tri.-Chennai), the Tribunal, Chennai has held as under: 4. The point at issue is whether the bought out items are accessories or parts of the cistern. In our view, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Koron Business Systems Ltd., the bought out items required to make the cistern functional, should be considered as accessories only. These ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|