TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (5) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue had filed the present appeal. 2. Factual backdrop : M/s. Indoprint Enterprises, Ahmadabad, the respondents herein are manufacturer of Textile Machinery falling under Tariff Item 68. During the period from 1-11-1980 to 31-3-1981 the respondents cleared the goods Textile Processing Machinery falling under Tariff Item 66 to the value of Rs. 29,50,785.00. According to the department as per proviso (ii) to Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980, the value of clearances eligible tor exemption during the relevant period should not have exceeded Rs. 24 lakhs. In other words the respondents were eligible under the said Notification for exemption up to the clearances of Rs. 24 lakhs and they were required to obtain the licence as soon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) Rs. 44,062.80. (2) Rs. 29,664.00 and (3) Rs. 52,595.46. Against that order of the Assistant Collector, the respondents filed their appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. By the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) set aside the two demands of Rs. 29,664,00 and Rs. 52.595.46 being non-maintainable. With respect to the third demand of Rs. 44,062,80, the Collector of (Appeals) held that this demand for Rs. 44,062.80 relates to the period from November, 1980 to March, 1981 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 24-9-1981. Consequently out of this demand except for seven to eight days of demand for the month of March, 1981 is totally hit by the time-bar under Section 11 A of the Central Excises and Salt Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is that the respondents are manufacturing textile machinery and selling the products In a complete named machine as-per their selling contract and they are not selling the parts thereof. He further submitted that looking to the size of the machine, it is not possible for them to supply the machine in assembled condition to their customers, as such, there is no alternative except to send the component parts of the said machine in boxes. Consequently, if cannot be said that these bought out articles are for the trading of their machines which are not sold separately by invoicing the separate bills but the invoice is prepared for a whole machine which is sold by them to their customers. As a result thereof the value of such bought out articles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ressors, Control Panel and Hydraulic Power Pack Unit are the component parts of their products i.e. to say Air Compressors machines also appears to be longer in dispute. Similarly, the fact that these bought out items were acquired by the respondents for completion of the machines which the respondents were manufacturing and supplying to the customers as per their selling contract is also no longer in dispute. On these established and proved facts, the mere fact that these bought out items were supplied by the respondents in knock-down condition would not make any difference. It is an admitted fact that the size of their machinery is quite big and it appears that it was not possible for the respondent to supply their machines in assembled c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the full intrinsic value of the goods, including the value of the raw materials, to be taken into account for calculating the turnover ceiling limit. Thus on the facts of the instant case we hold that the value of the bought out Items cleared by the respondents during the relevant period was includible while determining the clearances. 5. As regards the demand for Rs. 44.062.80 relating to the period from November, 1980 to March, 1981, the learned SDR submitted that the Collector (Appeals) erred in holding that the said demand was time-barred except for seven to eight days of demand for the month of March, 1981, being hit by the time-bar under Section 11A of me Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He contended that since the demand was b....