2004 (11) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e issue involved is whether they have to discharge the duty liability on the bought out items used for the repair of transformers. 2. We heard Shri Rajesh Chhibar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Sh. S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R. for the Revenue. 3. The appellants manufacture electric transformers which are mainly supplied by them to the Electricity Boards. The Electricity Boards send t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upon the decision in the case of Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. v. CCE, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 679 (T). The Commissioner (Appeals) also, under the impugned order, has rejected their appeal holding that the duty of excise has to be discharged on the intrinsic value of the goods as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. v CCE, 2000 (115) E.L.T. 32. The learned Advocate has submitted that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. (supra), the appellants were manufacturing mild steel pipes and tubes which were galvanised by them and the issue involved is whether the cost of galvanisation is to be included in the assessable value. In view of these facts, the Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that the process of galvanisation is carried on in another shed can make no difference and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X