Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The Show Cause Notice, only contends that the battery cell cannot be considered as an input used in the manufacture of final product namely clocks. However, in the order of the Assistant Collector, the following reasoning is given for holding that it is not an input for wall clock. "Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules speaks of goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product as specified in the notification issued under this Rule. The battery cells are not required in the course of manufacture of Quart/, Clocks but are required only to run the same. The battery cells are used for operational functions and are more in the nature of accessories of clocks than inputs in the same. Therefore the dry battery cell cannot be regarded as an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of Clock and time pieces".

(iii) Now coming to the reasoning given by the Collector (Appeals) in his order, he holds that dry cell is not required either in the manufacture or in relation to the manufacture of Quartz Wall Clocks. They are required only after these clocks are fully manufactured and are ready for delivery stage, merely for the purpose of providing power. These clocks are fully manufactured even before fitting the dry cells. The role and usage of dry cells is identical and similar to that of petrol in the motor car. The motor car cannot be said to be not manufactured unless petrol is put. The petrol is used only as a fuel only after the car has been fully manufactured. Similarly dry cells are used as a source of power to run the clocks, after they have been fully manufactured. The appellants plea based on marketability and inclusion of value of cells in the value of Wall Clocks is not relevant. They are relevant only for computation of the assessable value. While we propose to consider this aspect of relevance of marketability and value of the cell being included in our findings elsewhere, at this stage, we are only required to state that the analogy drawn by the Collector, comparing it to petrol used in the Motor car does not appeal to us. Petrol is a fuel for running the engine. A dry cell is a sealed vessel containing dry electrolyte and electrodes for release of power in the electrical circuit of the apparatus, where it is fitted to. Both cannot be construed to be indentical or similar excepting to the extent that in the case of dry cell, they provide power for running of the Wall Clock, while petrol provides the fuel for running the Combustion engine. We would deem it more appropriate to compare the dry battery cell to storage battery fitted to the motor car. Because both belong to the same genus and perform similar functions. However it was pleaded by Shri Mondal that storage battery in a car is only for starting the engine and once the engine is started, petrol provides the power for running the engine. While we appreciate this argument, we are to ask this question namely when, for a similar item storage battery confined only to the function of starting the engine of a car, Modvat credit is given, could it be denied to the battery cell, which is fitted into the Clock for the purpose of running the Clock?

11.2(vi) We also looked into the dictionary meanings of the terms 'accessory' and 'components', which also indicate that accessory is an item of secondary or subordinate importance in the performance of the machine. It only adds or aides to the efficiency of the machine, where as a component is an essential constituent of the machine and it is of prime importance to the machine.

11.2(vii) With these materials before us, we take up the case of battery cells in a Quart/, Clock. It is not in dispute that battery cell is essential for the running of the Quartz Clock and the Clock cannot perform its function without the battery cell being fitted into it. It is not an item, which goes as an attachment to the Clock for improving its efficiency or for performing a secondary or subordinate function. Clock is dead, if battery goes away. In this view, battery cell does not fit in with the concept of an accessory as held by the Assistant Collector and as pleaded by Shri Mondal.

11.2(ix) In the case of Jay Engineering, even name plates affixed to the fan have been construed to be a component for the electric fan, though it is not an item essential for running of the fan but an item essential for marketing it. The Apex Court have held that an item entering into the stream for completion of the manufactured product rendering it fit for marketing can be construed to be a component. Hence, with these judicial pronouncements from the Apex Court, we are to hold that the battery cell (even it can be purchased independently), if supplied as a component essential for running of the Clock and such Cells are neither sent as complimentary gifts nor in numbers more than what is required for the running of the Clock, they would have to be construed as essential component being supplied, with Clock mechanism in the course of sales from the factory. Shri Mondal however argued that he cannot be sure whether this is the marketing pattern of sale of Quartz Clocks and whether the battery cells involved in the present dispute are confined only to the number of cells required for running of each clock. On this we may observe that claim made by the appellant's Counsel before us has also been made before the lower authorities and there is no challange to the claim by the lower authorities. In any case, we allow the liberty to the Department to verify on this aspect to ensure that Modvat credit is claimed only in respect of battery cells of the required number for running of each clock and packed with the clock and the cost of battery cells is included in the value of the Quartz Clocks.