TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (4) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Item 68. The main spring plate in the assembly of the spring leaves is provided with an 'eye' at their ends to facilitate the fixing of bushes. The bushes are not manufactured by the appellants and the sale of these spring leaves without the bush is also a common feature. In other words, bush is not an essential part of spring leaves. Since the spring leaves are manufactured and supplied without bushes by the appellants, they were invoicing the sale of spring leaves independently of the supply of any other material. They have also not taken out licence for the manufacture of bushes, and they were obtaining them in the ,. open market and sell them separately, invoicing them separately at the request of the purchasers. On 7-6-1980, the Supe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uct for use by the buyers. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that goods as it leaves out of factory of production should pay duty on full value including the value of parts fitted into them, irrespective of whether or not such parts are purchased from outside.'' 3. The appellants filed a revision application under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act which was transferred to this Tribunal on its constitution. 4. The appellants' main contention is that the main spring is a finished product by itself and is recognised as a commodity without the production of bushes for them. Bushes are also recognised as independently identifiable goods that come to the market for being bought and sold. The 'bushes' are not integral p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elied upon on an order of this Tribunal in C.C.E. v. Jolly Exports (P) Ltd. [1990 (45) E.L.T. 612 (Tribunal)] wherein it was held that a part of a machinery is capable of being substituted or replaced. On the other hand, an accessory means something which contributes in a subordinate degree to attain general result or effect. If a machinery cannot be worked without the part, then it ceases to be an accessory. If it adds merely to the convenience or effectiveness of a machinery like a speedometer, it would be an accessory. Shri Jagdeesan also relied on Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1990 (44) E.L.T. 763] and submitted that it is the value of an essential part which is to be included in the assessable value and not an accessory. An accessory mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le and seek the exclusion from its assessable value of certain parts of the article as cleared and marketed on the ground that they are not incorporated in its main article and are not essential to its operation. Therefore, he submitted that the authorities below are justified in adding the cost of bushes to the value of springs. 7. The question that arises for consideration is whether the cost of the bushes is includible in the assessable value of spring leaves. 8. The Assistant Collector and the Collector rejected the contention of the appellants on the ground that 'bush' is an essential part of the spring and, therefore, the value of 'bush' is includible in the assessable value of spring leaves. The reply filed by the appellants to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al parts or not. Therefore, the finding of the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector that bushes are essential parts is neither based on inquiry not on evidence. Therefore, the contention of the Departmental Representative that the appellants have not made out a case that bushes are not accessories, cannot be sustained. 9. We may also point out that this Tribunal has already laid down a distinction between an accessory and a part in the case of C.C.E. v. Jolly Exports (P) Ltd. (supra). We may also refer to the observations of the Bombay High Court in T.I. Miller Ltd. v. U.O.I. & Another [1987 (31) E.L.T. 344] wherein pointing out the distinction between an accessory and a part, it was held that a thing is a part of the other only ....