TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (3) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from 9.1994 to 7.1996 demanding duty of Rs. 53,82,119/-. All of them were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, who under his order-in-original dated 26-3-1997 confirmed the demand of Rs. 88,49,422/- + Rs. 91,809/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakh). The benefit was, however, given with regard to the actual expenses subject to verification incurred towards unloading and stacking of the pipes and tubes at the customers site. 2. The issue regarding inclusion of the cost incurred towards galvanisation of the M.S. Pipes and Tubes came up before the Tribunal in the appellants' own case in Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, 1996 (82) E.L.T. 399 (T), while disposing of the appellants' earlier appeal no. E/2441/94-A. The Tribunal under order dated 4-12-1995 (while affirming that mere galvanisation did not amount to manufacture) held that even when galvanisation was done subsequent to paying duty on MS black pipes, the galvanisation charges were includible in the assessable value of the galvanised pipes. In the assenting decision, the Hon'ble President added, "the cost of galvanising or the enhanced price referrable to galvanisation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore 1987 (32) E.L.T. 169 (T). As regards service charges, it was pleaded that Madhya Pradesh LUNP were not a buyer but an agent and that the commission paid to them was not excludible from the assessable value of pipes and tubes. With regard to inspection charges, the learned DR was of the view that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shree Pipes Ltd. v. CCE, 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 (T), was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. It is admitted by both the sides that the issue regarding inclusion of galvanising cost in the assessable value of galvanised pipes and tubes has already been finally settled by the Apex Court under their order dated 3-11-1999 while disposing of the Civil Appeal No. 7282 of 1996 [2000 (115) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.)] of the same appellants, M/s Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal in the appellants' own case as reported as 1996 (82) E.L.T. 399 (T) in Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, wherein the Tribunal had held that the process of galvanising enriches the quality and value of the mild steel pipes and that the cost of galvanising was includible in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtion of the meaning of the term 'accessory' contained in Websters' Third New International Dictionary, which runs as follows: "An object or device that is not essential in itself but that adds to the beauty, convenience or effectiveness of something else." A thing is a part of the other only if the other is incomplete without it; a thing is an accessory of the other only if the thing is not essential for the other but only adds to its convenience or effectiveness (refer Kerala High Court decision in the case of Dy. Commissioner Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax v. U.O.I. - 1976 (38) STC 198 (Kerala). The electronic pitch tester attachment was an accessory of helix tester [(refer Collector of Customs Mumbai v. Perfect Machine Tools Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) = 1999 (80) ECR 306 (SC)]. In the case of United Copiex (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 28 (SC), the Supreme Court had observed in para-11 as under : 11. Be that as it may, the short question in this case is, having regard to entry 43 in the Schedule to the U.P. Sales Tax Act, can it be said that the "rubber flaps" manufactured by the assessee can come within the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Industries v. CCE - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 170 (Bombay), the Bombay High Court had made a pertinent observation that the context in which the words are dealt with had to be considered and that the words are loosely used even by people with technical minds. In the case of a car, a steering will be a component part but a shopkeeper may describe his business to be of selling of car accessories and he might sell the steering wheel as an accessory. The High Court observed that the fact that the shopkeepers describe a component part such as steering wheel as a motor accessory would not make it an accessory. With regard to apron and cots, the rubber products made by cutting of rubber pipes/tubes into small pieces, the High Court observed that the same were component parts of machinery articles and were not the accessories which signified aiding or contributing in a secondary or subordinate way. The accessory is used to denote a role or status which is supplementary or secondary to something of greater or primary importance. The word 'accessory' is used to suggest that something or somebody is incidental to the main subject. In other words, accessory is something which is in-essential and sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne pipe with the other. Similarly the facts in the case of Shriram Bearings Ltd. v. CCE, Patna, 1997 (91) E.L.T. 255 (S.C.), were distinguishable. In that case the matter related to the value for the purpose of excise duty of ball bearings. It was an admitted position that the snap rings, sleeve lock devices, cup assemblies, oil seals, eccentric collars, dust shields etc. were not parts of ball bearings but were accessories. On the ground that under item No. 49 of the erstwhile central excise tariff only ball bearings and not their accessories were covered, the Supreme Court held that the cost of such accessories was not includible in the assessable value of ball bearings. We thus hold that the cost of sockets was includible in the assessable value of the pipes and tubes. (ii) Service Charges. - As regards service charges, we consider that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Godavari Indus, v. CCE, Aurangabad, 1999 (80) ECR 180 (Tribunal) and Supreme Court decision in the case of Hyderabad Indus. Ltd. v. UOI, 2000 (114) E.L.T. 593 (S.C.). In the case of Godavari Indus, v. CCE, Aurangabad, 1999 (80) ECR 180 (T), the Tribunal had held that....