1997 (5) TMI 257 - AT - Central Excise

Court rules in favor of applicant on duty and assessable value of EOT cranes. Excisability affirmed, limitation defense rejected.

The court ruled in favor of the applicant in a case concerning duty amount and assessable value of EOT cranes. The charges for erection, commissioning, ... Stay/Dispensation of duty - Valuation Issues: Duty amount, inclusion of charges in assessable value, excisability of goods, limitation period, suppression of facts, waiver of deposit, request for early hearing.Duty Amount and Assessable Value:The judgment involves a dispute regarding the duty amount of Rs. 83.27 lacs demanded and a penalty of Rs. 83.44 lacs imposed on the applicant. The advocate for the applicant argues that charges incurred on erection, commissioning, and testing of EOT cranes should not be included in the assessable value of the cranes. He relies on a previous decision by the Tribunal in Braithwaite & Company Ltd. v. C.C.E., which held that such charges are not includible. The Departmental Representative, however, contends that these charges should form part of the manufacturing expenses, citing a decision by the Patna High Court that EOT cranes are liable to duty.Excisability of Goods:The Departmental Representative asserts that the excisability of the product, EOT cranes, is not in doubt, as they acquire essential characteristics of a crane in SKD condition. He argues that testing charges at the customers' premises are part of the manufacturing expenses. He refers to the Patna High Court's decision, which supported the view that erection and installation charges should be included in the assessable value.Limitation Period and Suppression of Facts:The applicant claims that a portion of the demanded amount is barred by limitation as the notice was issued after six months. They argue that there was no suppression of facts regarding the charges incurred, as they believed, based on the Tribunal's decision, that these charges were not includible in the assessable value. The Departmental Representative opposes the limitation claim, stating that the applicant withheld information about expenses on testing and installation.Waiver of Deposit:The judgment notes that the applicant has a strong prima facie case on merits, leading to the waiver of the deposit of duty, penalty, and interest, with a stay on their recovery.Request for Early Hearing:The advocate for the applicant requests an early hearing, citing the recurring nature of the issue and its settlement in various decisions. The appeals are proposed to be listed for hearing in the second half of July 1997.