1990 (2) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter referred to as the subsidiary Co.) had manufactured and removed excisable goods i.e. pulley blocks, electric hoists and traveling trollies falling under T.1.68 valued at Rs. 1,69,4291 - from their factory premises by truck No. BMS 2251 belonging to W.H. Brady & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the holding Co.) on 12th and 13th October 1981 without determination and payment of Central Excise duty, without the cover or valid CE transport documents in form G.P. 1 and without accountal in the R.G. 1 Register. After issue of show cause notices for levy of duty on spare parts supplied, on repair charges and erection and assembling charges, seizure of confiscated goods, imposition of penalty and confiscation of the truck, the Collector of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on payment of duty and sold to M/s. W.H. Brady and Co. Ltd. They never dealt with the said goods after their sale to M/s. W.H. Brady and Co. It is further contended that they have never appointed M/s. W.H. Brady and Co. as their sole selling agent and they had not sold the goods to M/s. W.H. Brady and Co. on turnkey project basis. They argued that their transaction with M/s. W.H. Brady and Co. Ltd., was at arms length. Examining this contention, I find that M/s. W.H. Brady and Co. Ltd. are the holding Company of M/s. Brady and Morris Engineering Company. Therefore, M/s. W.H. Brady and Co. Ltd., are related person of M/s. Brady and Morris Engineering Co. Ltd., I also find that M/s. Brady and Morris Engineering Co. Ltd. under their letter N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red, assembled and tested in the factory having already been paid at the time of removal of goods from the factory premises. Learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 251 (Braithwaite & Co. v. CCE., Calcutta) and 1987 (28) E.L.T. 458 (CCE, Bangalore v. Intercon Engineers) in support of his contention that erection charges are not includable in assessable value. Following the ratio laid down therein, we hold that the erection/assembling charges realised by the appellants are to be excluded from the assessable value and we set aside the order of the Collector relating to such inclusion. The appellants are entitled to consequential relief on this score. 7. Learned counsel submits that the quantum of penalty is ve....