9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ./g.i. pipes. 3.The appellant herein has filed its price lists under Rule 173C in the form of Part-II in respect of m.s./g.i. pipes for approval with the department, in which it claimed deduction towards service charges and cost of sockets from the assessable value of m.s./g.i. pipes. According to the department, the sockets fitted to the pipes were the essential parts of the pipes; they enabled the functioning of pipes and in absence of the sockets, the said m.s./g.i. pipes could not be said to have been completed as the sockets were the essential parts for joining the pipes to each other. According to the department, service charges were not deductible from the assessable value of the pipes, as the said charges were paid by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese charges did not contribute to the character of the goods in question. They were like inspection charges or storage charges and, therefore, they were not includible in the assessable value of the pipes. 5.We do not find any merit in the above arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. The essential basis of valuation under Section 4 of the Act is the wholesale cash price charged by the appellant. Normal price under Section 4(1)(a) constituted a measure for levy of excise duty. In the present case, we are concerned with assessment and not with classification. Duty under Section 4 was not leviable on the "conceptual value" but on the normal price charged or chargeable by the assessee. [See : Union of India & Others v. Bombay Tyre Int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the pipes. It is found that the sockets were essential for functioning of the pipes. They were required for joining the pipes to each other. In the circumstances, the functional test stood fully satisfied in this case and consequently, the cost of the said sockets was includible in the assessable value of the said m.s./g.i. pipes. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that the test of essentiality is not the correct test. We do not find any merit in this argument. We have applied the test of essentiality in several cases, particularly in order to distinguish a component from accessory. [See : Commissioner of Central Excise v. Akay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2005 (182) E.L.T. 294 Para 45]. According to Chambers Science & T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
