SIDDHARTHA TUBES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. relates to the determination of assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.

(2.) Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufactured MS black and Galvanised Pipes; that they are procuring Orders through M.P, Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. and paying the certain amount to the said Nigam known as Service charges for rendering services towards procuring Orders and payment from various Government Departments; that the Revenue has included these service charges in the assessable value of the excisable goods manufactured by them and confirmed the demand of duty. He, further, mentioned that the appellants in certain cases along with pipes are also providing sockets, bought from the open market, the cost of which has also been included by the Department in the assessable value. At this stage, Shri R.C. Sankhla, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the inclusion of these two charges in the assessable value has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of the Appellants themselves as reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 679 (Tri.); that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that the cost of socket fitted on pipes to enable their joining with other pipes with a view to obtain a pipe of required length is includible in the assessable value; as the pipes cannot function as pipes without the sockets; that the Tribunal has also held that the service charges paid by them to M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. is includible in the assessable value in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Godavari Industries v. CCE, Aurangabad [1999 (80) E.C.R. 180 (Tri.)] and decision of Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2000 (115) E.L.T. 593 (S.C.)]. Learned Advocate fairly admitted that the Tribunal has decided both the issues against the Appellants against which the Appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court but no stay has been obtained.

(3.) In view of the decision already pronounced by the Tribunal on both the issues against the Appellants, we hold that the service charges as well as the cost of socket are includible in the assessable value. However, there is force in the submissions of the learned Advocate that price has to be treated as curn -duty -price for the purpose of determining the assessable value. We, therefore, Order that the quantum of duty has to be recomputed by the Adjudicating Authority by treating the price as cum -duty -price. We also agree with the learned Advocate that if the cost of the Socket is to be included in the assessable value, they are eligible to take the Modvat credit of the duty paid on such socket - The Modvat credit of the duty paid on socket will be available to the Appellants subject to their production of duty paying documents within six weeks from the receipt of this Order to this jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.