SUNRAY COMPUTERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), who has remanded the matter back for re -consideration and determination of the value of a product supplied to Railways termed as Data Acquisition and Processing Equipment for Modern Oscillograp Cars. This product was supplied for the Railway wagons, by the appellant manufacturer. For this purpose, he manufactured certain items in his licenced premises and obtained certain other items which are termed by him as bought out items. The plea of the appellant before us is that the value of such bought out items should not be added to the value of the product supplied to the Railways.

(2.) WE heard learned Advocate Shri S. Raghu, for the appellants, who took us through the decision of the Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v. CCE, Hyderabad [1988 (38) E.L.T. 566 (S.C.) = 1989 (20) ECR 129 (S.C.)] and para 3 thereof to submit that in their case the bought out items are pleaded at all times to be fully manufactured and functional and are in nature of accessories to the item which has been manufactured in their premises. He further submitted, that one of the alleged items, whose value is to be loaded i.e. ruggedisation is not any physical existing goods, but are only in nature of charges per set, therefore amounts on account of this alleged item, cannot be added, in any case, they being after removal charges at site.

(3.) THE learned SDR Smt. Radha Arun, appearing for Revenue took us through para 6 of the Grounds of Appeal which is an under : The learned Collector failed to appreciate that when the bought out items are assembled alongwith some self -manufactured items by the appellant. The value of bought out items is not includable in the assessable value, would itself indicate that the items are essential for the performance of the product being supplied to the Railways and therefore the appellants plea taken at this belated stage, of they being in nature of accessories should not be accepted. She further submitted that the appellants at no earlier stage, had submitted or taken the case of the bought out item being accessories.