1986 (6) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... purpose of assessment of Central Excise duty:- I.  Cost of 1. Battery and its initial charging. 2. Battery charger 3. Attachments and accessories such as load back rest, extra set of lights, ram attachment, crane attachmant etc. II.Cost of 1. Packing 2. Forwarding charges or loading/unloading charges. 2.The period relevant to the controversy is from 15-10-1982 to 31-7-1983. 3. We find that the point at issue for cost category I above stood settled in the appellants' favour by the following orders-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector/Collector (Appeals) in the appellant's own case:- (1) Order-in-appeal No. 262/Cal./82, dated 31-3-1982 (for battery and battery charger). (2) Order-in-appeal No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cost elements enumerated in paragraph 47 of the Supreme Court judgment. The dispute in the appellants' writ petition before the Calcutta High Court also related to deduction of "post-manufacturing expenses and/or selling expenses and/or selling cost and/or selling profit". Neither the Supreme Court judgment nor the Calcutta High Court's remand order even remotely touched upon the issue whether the articles listed under cost category I above could be considered parts or components of forklift trucks so as to justify inclusion of their value in the assessable value of forklift trucks. The Assistant Collector's action in seeking to revise 'the orders-in-appeal passed by a superior authority was, therefore, without the authority of law and juri....