LAWS(ALL)-1997-7-166

EUREKA FORBES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

Decided On July 02, 1997
EUREKA FORBES LTD. Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is manufacturer of vacuum cleaners. The case of the petitioner is that it manufactures certain items as part of the vacuum cleaners whereas the other parts and accessories known as optional accessories are purchased from the market and so such accessories are never manufactured within the factory premises of the petitioner nor they are cleared from the factory premises as such they are not excisable goods nor the value of such products can be added for assessing the value of the product for the purposes of levying the excise duty. According to the petitioner this position has been upheld by the order of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. E/676/94-A & E/1647/94-A, dated 5-2-1996 1996 (83) E.L.T. 334 (Tribunal). According to the petitioner the Tribunal had come to a finding of fact that extra numbers of bags in excess of one supplied along with the machine duly fitted will not be its component parts and they do not form part of the assessable value. The said order was passed for the period August, 1992 to January, 1993.

(2.) Mr. Sudhir Chandra appearing for the petitioner submits that for the present period also the same principle should be applied and only the product manufactured in the factory premises and cleared be made assessable in terms of the said order of the Tribunal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that unfortunately due to the illness of the Advocate of M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. of Bombay who was conducting the case, the appeal against the order passed by the Asstt. Collector could not be filed before the Collector (Appeals) within time as prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appeal was filed beyond time as such the Collector (Appeals) refused to entertain the said appeal.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir Chandra also challenges the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that the same was passed ex parte and in violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, the said order of the Assistant Collector was passed a few days before the passing of the order of the Tribunal as such they had gone in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) but unfortunately in view of the facts stated above the appeal was dismissed on a technical interpretations of Section 35 of the said Act. Section 35 of the Central Excises & Salt Act read as follows :