2010 (9) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent-company during the period of dispute (April 2000 to August 2001) was liable to be included in the assessable value of the UPSS. The original authority held that the cost of battery was includible in the assessable value, but the first appellate authority set aside that decision and held to the contra. The Revenue is aggrieved by this decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Upon examination of records, we note that UPSSs without battery were cleared from the factory to "branch offices/sales offices" (so called in the assessee's parlance) on payment of duty on the assessable value of the goods in the form they were cleared from the factory. We further note that, at the branch office/sales office, batteries bought out from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessable value of the UPSS. 2. Learned JCDR has also shown us copies of a few invoices/bills issued by the respondent from their branch office to various customers. These invoices describe UPSS with battery as one complete commodity and also indicate that trade tax was paid @ 5% on the said commodity. The endeavour of the learned JCDR is to show that the assessee themselves treated battery as an integral and indispensable part of UPSS. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, submits that a decision rendered by this Tribunal in their own case in favour of the Revenue was appealed against. In this connection, he refers to Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Electronics & Controls [1998 (27) RLT 816 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng activities were undertaken in the branch offices. 4. We note that, in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that the bought-out item (battery) never came to the factory and the same was sold from 'depot'. Thus the Commissioner (Appeals) preferred to assess UPSS in the form it was cleared from the factory. The above finding of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not been specifically challenged in this appeal. 5. Moreover, the case sought to be made out by the Revenue in this appeal is not forthcoming in the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice nowhere alleged that the branch offices of the respondent were extensions of the factory and that any part of the process of manufactu....