TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (3) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in respect of the clearances of mopeds between 1-3-1974 to 23-10-1975 with shock absorbers and/or after metallic painting and/or after chrome painting. 2. The appellants were clearing their products, (namely, mopeds) from their factory at Tirupathi. In addition to charging the values as declared in the Gate Passes, the appellants have also been recovering cost of rear shock absorbers fitted to the auto-cycles and towards labour charges for modification of frame for fitment of rear shock absorber. They have also collected labour charges for Deluxe Metallic painting and for special chrome painting of extra parts fitted to the auto cycles as per customers orders. Besides the above, they were charging amounts towards packing and forwardin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitting the classification lists and they were duly approved by the officers. They also stated that during the relevant period the prices of scooters were fixed under the Scooters (Distribution and Sale) Control Order, 1960 and the price so approved should be accepted as the assessable value. The mopeds had been cleared after payment of duty. The additional fittings constituted bought out components and no duty could be charged in respect of these items. They also contended that the packing charges should not be held to form part of the assessable value. The Collector of Central Excise after an enquiry passed the orders now under appeal. 4. Shri Y.G. Ramamurty, advocate, urged that the shock absorbers were fixed at the request of the cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not apply to the facts of the case. 5. Shri A.K. Jain, SDR, argued that the demand was not barred by time. He stated that the party was clearing the mopeds with rear shock absorbers and with metallic painting and packings. Separate invoices were raised and the same were not disclosed to the department till October, 1975. He relied on the ruling reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 966A (Tri.) = 1983 ECR 662D (CEGAT) (M/s. E. Merck (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay) where it was held that the goods have to be valued and assessed in the form in which they were presented for assessment at the time of their clearance from the factory. 6. As already observed, the relevant period is between 1-3-1974 and 23-10-1975 whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....price fixed in terms thereof is for such vehicles. 9. Nor is there any evidence on record to enable a decision as to whether the rear shock absorbers are essential parts of the vehicle or merely accessories. 10. In the circumstances, we are thus not in a position either to take the control price as the assessable value or conclude that rear shock absorbers are really in the nature of accessories. 11. It is stated that the appellants have cleared mopeds with rear shock absorbers or metallic paintings or chrome finish only in respect of at least 5.7% of the clearances. The contention that these were merely additional fittings or improvements and were effected at the request of the customers, cannot be accepted in the absence of any e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion of time bar discussed below. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the demand is barred by time. The lower authorities have adverted to Rule 9(2) and Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The decision of the Tribunal in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1927 (Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd., Ghaziabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut) considers the effect of these provisions in juxtaposition. It was held therein that no period of limitation is prescribed for the levy of a penalty either in terms of Rule 9(2) or Rule 173Q; just as the limitation prescribed in Sec. 468 of the Cr.P.C. is inapplicable to a prosecution under Sec. 9 of the Act. The department has claimed that there was a suppression of fact. Shri A.K. Jain s....