Assessable value of electronic balances includes necessary components and mandatory stamping charges; exemption denied for ineligible sensitivity level.

Notification No. 71/86 exempted only precision balances with sensitivity of 5 mg or better, so balances with sensitivity ranging from 0.01 gm to 0.1 gm did not qualify for the exemption. The cost of the wind draft shield was includible in assessable value because it was treated as a necessary component for maintaining the balance's sensitivity, not a merely optional accessory. Stamping charges were also includible because mandatory stamping under weights and measures law was required before the product could be marketed. The duty demand and penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of Notification No. 71/86 dated 10.02.1986 was available to precision balances of the sensitivity manufactured by the appellant. (ii) Whether the cost of the wind draft shield and stamping charges were includible in the assessable value of the electronic balances.

Issue (i): Whether the benefit of Notification No. 71/86 dated 10.02.1986 was available to precision balances of the sensitivity manufactured by the appellant.

Analysis: The notification exempted only precision balances of sensitivity of 5 mg. or better. The goods manufactured by the appellant were of much inferior sensitivity, ranging from 0.01 gm to 0.1 gm. The goods therefore did not satisfy the condition of the exemption entry.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 71/86 dated 10.02.1986 was not available to the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the cost of the wind draft shield and stamping charges were includible in the assessable value of the electronic balances.

Analysis: The wind draft shield was treated as a necessary component for maintaining the sensitivity of the balance and not as a merely optional accessory. The appellant did not show that it was supplied only to a few customers. The stamping charges related to mandatory stamping under the Weights & Measures law, and the product could not be marketed without such stamping.

Conclusion: The cost of the wind draft shield and the stamping charges were includible in the assessable value.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an item is necessary for the functioning or marketability of the excisable goods, its cost forms part of the assessable value, and an exemption notification is unavailable when the goods do not satisfy the specified eligibility condition.

---