1999 (2) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sposed of by this common order. 2. By common Order-in-Appeal dated 16-7-1991 Collector (Appeals), Jaipur disposed of three Appeals filed by the present Appellants against three adjudication orders, all dated 19-9-1990, confirming three duty demands for three different periods. 3. Facts: Appellants are manufacturers of Transmission Line Tower parts falling under Tariff Heading 7303.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They filed price lists for approval of assessable value for levy of Central Excise duty chargeable on ad valorem basis. Scrutiny of contracts entered into by the appellants with their buyers showed that the contract provided for payment of testing charges by the buyers in addition to the price of fabricated material....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h and therefore not 'goods' within the meaning of the Central Excise Act,1944 since they were not cleared from their factory in marketable form and also that they were not put to any other use other than the testing process in the factory. (b) `destruction test' was not a normal condition in their contracts with their customers. This condition was inserted in the contract at the request of some customers only, for example, NTPC. Separate invoices in relation to such Tests were raised only in relation to those customers for whom such tests were specifically conducted. It was, therefore, not correct according to appellants to allege (as has been done in the SCN) that the activity of testing the strength of manufactured product enriched ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....36) E.L.T. 316 (T)] and Godrej Boyce v. U.O.I. [1989 (43) E.L.T. 225]. 6. Ld. JDR submitted that the question for consideration was not in relation to charging of duty on the model transmission tower erected for purpose of testing or as to whether they were movable property or not, but whether the cost of erection of the model which is eventually destroyed by testing should be added to the value of the product ordered by the customer. The test served the purpose of clearly ascertaining the strength and quality of the excisable goods to be supplied to the customer. There was no doubt that the 'destruction test' further demonstrated its quality to the satisfaction of the customer in addition to the standard quality supplied to other c....