Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Escorts Limited vs Commissioner Of C. Ex., Delhi-Ii on 13 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(141)ELT702(TRI-DEL)
ORDER C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. In the present case, the duty demand has arisen on account of the addition of labour cost involved in the replacement of parts during warranty period of tractors, to their assessable value. The learned Counsel has brought to our notice the decision of this Tribunal in the case of TELCO Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, 2000 (121) E.L.T. 224 which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in (A60 Vol. 130 E.L.T.) and submitted that the addition made in the impugned order is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court.
2. As against the contention on behalf of the appellant, the learned SDR points out that the very issue remains decided against the appellant by the decision of this Tribunal in their own case reported in Delhi 2000 (124) E.L.T. 496. He also mentions that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner following this order of the Tribunal. It is his contention that there is no merit in the appellants case in view of the previous decision of the Tribunal.
3. A perusal of the records and judgments relied upon by both sides makes it clear that the issue remains decided against the appellant by the Tribunal's decision reported in 2000 (124) E.L.T. 496. The subsequent order in the case of TELCO - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 224 does not specifically deal with the issue of inclusion of labour cost of replacing of parts during warranty period. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the appellant is not having a strong prima facie case on merits of the case.
4. In view of the above position, we order the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs pending hearing of the case. The matter to come up for reporting compliance on 1-4-2002. Subject to pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs, the case shall be taken up for hearing on 1st April, 2002 in view of the submission of the learned Counsel that the appellant's competitors are not being subjected to duty on this element and the issue is of recurring nature.