Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. The appellants have stated that the software supplied by them was a bought-out item and was not manufactured by them. On that account they have pleaded that the value of such software could not be included in the assessable value as per Section 4 of the Act. The statement that the software was not manufactured by them is contradicted by the following endorsement in their invoices. "These commodities are manufactured in India with United States Technology on the condition that they may not be re-exported without prior approval from United States Authorities." It is also endorsed with regard to software as "Only licenced to use these program products as per the terms and conditions in our standard program products licence agreement." They have shown software in their classification/price lists and claimed exemption from central excise duty available in favour of software as such. Further it may be mentioned that under Section 3 of the Act there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured in India and a duty on salt manufactured in or imported by land into any part of India as and at the rates set forth in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In this case the excise liability of the computer system has to be determined with reference to the computer system itself. For the assessment of the computer system it is immaterial whether the software or any other part of it, is a bought out item. In the assessment of computer system any part loses its independent identity and becomes a part of the computer system. It is also immaterial that its packing is separate. In the case of Texmaco Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 AIR SCW 2020 the Hon. Supreme Court have observed that the value of the article was the full intrinsic value of the article inclusive of the cost of the materials and components supplied free by the customer, and irrespective of the fact that no expenditure was incurred by the manufacturer on such components. The Hon. Supreme Court added that the assessable value would take into account the full commercial value. The nexus with the manufacturing activity of the asses-see while assessing the final product in which bought-out items are used is not a relevant criteria in a case where the bought-out items are an essential part of the final product. In fact there are so many cases wherein the manufacturers are engaged only in the assembly of various bought-out items to bring into existence a new excisable commodity. In the case of Kirloskar Brothers v. UOI - 1992 AIR SCW 1324 the appellant carried on business of manufacturing power-driven pumps and mono block pumps. For manufacturing mono block type power driven pump sets and power driven pumps, they were purchasing electric motors from another company. Although that matter related to old Section 4 of the Act the observations of the Hon. Supreme Court that "the value of the excise duty paid on the electric motor is not deductible while arriving at the assessable value under Section 4(a) of the Act", are of general application, and relevant to the issue before us. In the case of Koran Business Systems Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 48 (Bom.), the Bombay High Court have observed that the assessable value of finished goods was to include the value of duty paid components purchased from the market. They held that the bought-out parts were includible as Camera in photocopying machine could not function without timer and lens. They held that the Camera when assembled includes the timer and lens, and without these, camera cannot function. Without Camera, the photocopying machine could not be sold in the market. Thus the Bombay High Court held that the value of timer and lens is required to be included in the assessable value.