TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (9) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cal. bearing Nos. 93/Bol/88 dt. 28-9-1988 in respect of S.P. No. 305/89 [A. No. E(SB)-504/89] and 94-95/Bol/88 dated 29-9-1988 in respect of S.P. Nos. 306/89 and 307/89 [in Appeal Nos. E(SB)-505/89 and E(SB)-506/89]. As the issue is common this common order is passed for all these three cases. 2. By his orders the Ld. Collector has confirmed in principle the valuation decision contained in the three orders-in-original bearing Nos. 3/68/AC-3/DGP/87 dated 30-1-1987; 29/68.07/AC-28/DGP/88 dated 26-5-1988; and 60-61/6807/AC(55-56)/DGP/88 dated 21-6-1988 respectively - passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Durgapur Central Excise Division, Durgapur-12. 3. The Assistant Collector had decided that the assessable value of Concrete ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in A. No. E/2358/84-D being the Order No. 55/1988/D dated January 1988, in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. M/s. Daya Engineering Works (P) Ltd. In this case, the goods and the issue involved are identical with what we have to deal with in the present appeals. The Special Bench of the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the value of the inserts was not liable to be included for payment of duty. The same issue was decided in the same manner by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mysore Structurals Limited [1985 (19) E.L.T. 60] Shri Chakraborty also relied upon the decision of the CEGAT Special Bench, in Bridge and Roof Company of India Ltd. [1986 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also granted stay in the Burn Standard appeal filed before them by the Company. He concluded his argument stating that the appellants are a small Manufacturing Firm and they will be put to considerable hardship if they are to make the pre-deposit of the duty amounts demanded as these amounts cannot be recovered from the railways. He admitted, however, on a question from the Bench that the Company is a profit making concern and the hardship was on account of the impossibility of recovery of the amounts from their customers. 6. Replying to the arguments of the Counsel, Shri M.P. Selvam, the Ld. J.D.R. stated that the cast iron inserts are embedded in the Concrete Sleepers during the course of manufacture in the factory at the casting st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 671, the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of M/s. Mysore Structurals Ltd. [1985 (19) E.L.T. 60] and the original judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bum Standard Co. Ltd. We find that the last mentioned Calcutta High Court judgment dated 8-1-1987 had been reversed subsequently on an appeal by the Department by a judgment of the Divisional Bench. Hence the reliance on the original judgment would not be appropriate. Also the other decisions relied upon by the appellants had been rendered before the pronouncement of the Supreme Court decision in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India & Others case 1988 ....