TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (6) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one lakh and rupees ten lakhs imposed on Shri A. Sugavanam, Executive Chairman of M/s. Sparr Equipment (Pvt.) Ltd. and the company respectively on the ground that truck chasis does not form an integral part of drilling rig and that the compressor was a separate equipment and was not essential and necessary; that Hammers supplied were additional and optional equipment and bought out items and therefore, their value should not be added to the value of the rig. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of hydraulic drilling rigs and the allegation in the show cause notice was that the applicants had not included the value of truck chasis, Compressor and Hammers supplied with the Hydr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illing Rig being supplied alongwith the Truck chasis, Compressor and Hammer was indicated in RT-12 returns which were being assessed by the Department from time to time. Referring to the case law, the ld. Advocate submitted that in the case of Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd. reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 737, the Hon'ble Tribunal had held that "Drill Rods/ Pipes and Drill Bits are not integral part of the Drilling Machines but essentially in the nature of operating equipment and that Drill Rods/Pipes etc. when manufactured by assessee, duty payable under relevant headings of Tariff but duty not leviable when these items received by assessee as duty paid bought out items for being supplied to customers alongwith Drilling Rigs"; that the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a fide belief was that the value was not includible in the assessable value of the Drilling Rig; that the case prima facie on merits was in their favour and that pre-deposit of such a huge amount of duty and penalty will put them to irreparable loss and therefore, prayed that pre-deposit may be dispensed with. 5. Shri B.K. Singh, the ld. SDR appearing for the respondents submitted that in so far as the limitation issue is concerned, the applicant has claimed bona fide belief in terms of Trade Notice No. 32/81, dated 16-4-1981, final assessment of RT-12 returns and placed reliance on the the case law; that on the question of submission of RT-12 returns, a look at the RT-12 returns will show that the applicants were not disclosing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1989 (44) E.L.T. 763. 6. On the question of limitation, the ld. SDR submitted that the classification list has not been produced by the applicants and therefore it cannot be said that description given in the classification list conformed to the actual items being supplied and disclosed in the classification list. On RT-12 returns, the ld. SDR submitted that the description of the goods was Water Well Rigs. On the question that the applicants were under the bona fide belief that the bought out items value is not included in the assessable value of the finished product manufactured by the applicant, the ld. SDR submitted that the concept has since changed by the rulings given by the Tribunal in a number of cases decided since then a....