Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 1 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(94)ELT169(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. The short point falls for our consideration in this case is whether cost of plough lamp is to be included in the assessable value of the tractors manufactured and cleared by the appellants.
2. We have heard Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant for the appellants and Department was duly represented by Shri G.D. Sharma, learned J.D.R.
3. Shri Swaminathan, learned Consultant submitted that item in question was supplied to the farmers. He said that out of 3022 tractors, lamp in question was fitted only to 1244 tractors at the request of the buyers. He said that this was purely optional item and this cannot be included in the assessable value of the tractor. He submitted that issue involved in this case has been squarely covered by the series of decisions starting from International Tractor Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in J 977 (1) E.L.T. (J 133) and the same has been followed by the Tribunal in a number of cases including Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 508 (Tribunal). He referred to Para 8 of the decision in the case of Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. Ltd, wherein it was held that if the item was optional, it cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellants. He submitted that it is not even the case of the Department that it was not optional. The Assistant Collector has included the cost of item in question on the ground that it was an accessory. This view was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) holding that wherever lamp was fitted in the tractor that is to be included, and when the tractor was supplied without plough lamp, the same cannot be included.
4. Shri G.D. Sharma submitted that order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is just correct since he has made it clear that cost of the item in question is to be included in the assessable value of the tractor wherever it is fitted and supplied.
5. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that authorities below have admitted the factual position that lamp was fitted only in some cases but since it was essential and accessory it is to be included in the assessable value of the Tractor, according to the Department. On going through the catena of decisions referred to by the learned Consultant for the appellants it is clear that irrespective of the fact whether it is accessory and essential, if it was not supplied compulsorily to the customer then the cost of such item cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants. We find that this issue has been squarely covered by the decisions referred to by the learned Consultant. Concurring with this view that item is only optional we make it clear that cost of the lamp, as such, cannot be included in the value of the tractors manufactured and cleared by the appellants. Further, we make it clear that since fixture and fittings were also provided in the Tractor, the cost of the same is includible. With these observations, this appeal is allowed.