Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Cce vs Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. Ltd. on 11 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(80)ECR67(TRI.-MUMBAI)
ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. The department being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 8.10.1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay has filed this appeal.
2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of travel goods such as suitcases and briefcases, was filing price lists from time to time and clearing goods on payment of appropriate duty on approved prices. The dispute relates to the period April, 1986 to May, 1988. It was found that along with suitcases of 24" and above sizes, respondent was supplying bought out wheeler kits and special chains to wholesale dealers who purchased suitcases but did not include the value of the bought out items in the assessable value of suitcases and thereby evaded duty. Show cause notice dated 23.8.1988 was issued referring to the above facts and alleging mis-declaration of value with intent to evade duty and proposing to determine the assessable value of suitcases cleared during the period after including the value of bought out items and proposing demand of differential duty on that basis. Respondent resisted the notice. The Collector of Central Excise dropped the demand holding that these items were only optional accessories and not components and therefore their value was not to be included in the assessable value of suitcases.
3. The number of suitcases in size 24" and above produced during the disputed period, number of suitcases in size 24" and above having base bracket manufactured and cleared, number of suitcases of the above sizes having base bracket sold, number of wheel kit despatched to depots, number of wheel kit sold by depots are furnished in internal page 11 of the impugned order. It is seen that as against nearly 8 lacs units of suitcases manufactured during the period, only around two lacs had base brackets, and of these 1.67 lacs units were sold during the period. However, the number of wheel kits sold was only 22,953. Further particulars given at page 12 of the impugned order show that 4.5 lacs units of suitcases had centre lock with groove provided for fixing chains, that 4.15 lacs of suitcases with centre lock with groove were sold during the period and the number of chains sold was only one lac. Percentage of chains sold to Lags having centre lock with groove was 24.07. Percentage of wheel kits sold to suitcases having base brackets was 13.73. It is thus clear that these bought-out items were supplied to wholesale dealers only at their request This itself would indicate that wheeler kits and chains cannot be regarded as component parts of suitcases. Tribunal has taken the same view in the order in an earlier appeal filed by the present respondent. See . Appeal filed by the Department against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on merits as can be seen at A58 of 1998 (99) ELT.
4. Shri R.D. Negi, SDR placed reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal in Bajaj Auto limited . The controversy in the case did not relate to valuation or as to whether a particular bought-out item should be regarded as component or accessory. The dispute was whether jack assemblies and tool kits supplied along with the motor vehicles were 'inputs' for the purpose of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and not excluded by clause 1A of the Explanation to that rule. Tribunal held that they were 'inputs'. The scope of the controversy in the case relied on by the department is totally different from the scope of the controversy' in the present case Following the decision , we dismiss the present appeal.