Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Baker Mercer (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 7 March, 1995 cites

Jyoti Limited Baroda vs Union Of India And Anr. on 27 June, 1979

3. Shri M. R. Mhaisker, the ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted that oil and moisture filters are not parts of air gauges; that they are bought out items; that they are supplied as an optional accessory to the customers who order for them with the orders for air gauges; that there was no regular or normal trade practice to invariably supply filters with air gauges; that the mention of filters in the printed catalogue was to indicate the filters as standard equipment/accessories. On the issue that filters are standard accessories of air gauges, the appellants produced samples thereof before the Collector (Appeals). It was explained by the ld. Counsel that air gauges function without filters; that air gauges are complete without filters and are marketed as such; that filters are neither an essential part nor an integral part of air gauges; that filters are not fitted to air gauges at the time of clearance; that there were a number of cases where air gauges were cleared without filters and filters were sold without air gauges; that it was the choice - cum-option of the user whether to make use of filters for compression line or not; that oil and moisture filters are accessories and not component parts. Citing and relying on the ratio of the judgment in the case of Jyoti Limited v. UOI reported in 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 546) and in the case of Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 305, the ld. counsel for the appellants submitted that the term 'accessory' and parts have been defined in most unambiguous terms in these decisions and that the ratio of these decisions was squarely applicable to the appellant's case. The ld. Consultant also submitted that proper investigation to look into the facts of the case was not undertaken by the department and the show cause notice was issued simply because an audit objection was raised.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Diamond Clock Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 30 December, 1987

The ld. consultant submitted that their contention that oil and moisture remover filters are accessories is supported by an expert opinion. On the question of inclusion or otherwise of the value of bought out items, the ld. consultant cited and relied upon the ratio of the judgment in the case of Diamond Clock Manufacturing v. CCE reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 662.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Shalimar Textile Mfg. Pvt. Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 16 July, 1986

In such a situation, it may not be appropriate for the Tribunal to deviate from the ratio of the Bombay High Court Judgment in the Extrusion Processes (P) Ltd. case unless it is shown that the other decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Metal Box Co. in Writ Petition No. 511 of 1973 has been upset by the decision of the Supreme Court where the appeal against that order is said to be pending. In the circumstances, the order proposed by the Hon'ble President is concurred with.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

C.C.E. And Ors. vs Shell Paper Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 16 November, 1990

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of mechanical/pneumatic/electronic gauges and parts thereof. They have been selling oil and moisture filters which they claim to be an optional accessory and happens to be a bought out item with the air gauges to some of the customers who order for them alongwith the order for air gauges. The department was of the view that oil and moisture filters are standard equipment/accessory of air gauges and therefore the value of the oil and moisture filters should be added to the assessable value of air gauges and duty will be computed on the composite value. The Asstt. Collector in his order after examining the evidence produced by the appellants and considering the relevant submissions made during the course of personal hearing held that oil V and moisture filters are an integral part and essential part of the air gauges. The main function of the oil and moisture filters is to prevent impurities in the compression line for entering info the air gauges. Thus, if the filters are not used, the impurities in the compression line will damage the air gauges and reduce its utility and also longivity. Thus, it was held that as the oil and moisture filters perform an important function to prevent the impurity from entering the air gauges and are as such an important, essential and integral part of the air gauges. After considering the rulings in the case of CCE v. Lavkein Pvt.. Ltd. reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 700, in the case of Lona Manufacturers of Home Appliances reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 482 and in the case of W.H. Brady and Co. v. CCE reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 61, the Asstt. Collector found that the value of the part is not excludible from the value of an article on the ground that the parts are not integral or essential parts thereof, but merely accessories etc. Thus, the Asstt. Collector concluded that as there were different judgments on both aspects and therefore, the facts in the instant case are to be considered separately and the issue to be decided in accordance with the facts available in the instant case. The Asstt. Collector, therefore, ordered that the value of oil and moisture filters shall be added to the value of the air gauges and Central Excise duty shall be computed on the composite value. The Asstt. Collector also imposed a penalty. These orders-in-appeal were confirmed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1