2013 (12) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atic ash handling system' in CKD condition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants received orders for supply of complete dense phase ash handling system. The appellants manufactured certain parts in their factory and cleared on payment of appropriate excise duty. The appellants also procured certain parts/components/machines from the market, which were directly supplied at the site, which were used in the setting up of the handling system. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellants had received the order of complete ash handling system and the same has been supplied, therefore the value of bought out times is to be added to the value of the goods cleared from the factory. 4. The contention of the appellants....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he earth, therefore is not excisable. The appellants also relied upon the Board's circular F.No. 93/12/89-CX.3 dated 19.4.1989 where the Board has clarified that when the parts or components such as chimney, tank, scrubber etc. are brought together at site, it cannot be viewed as manufacture of such goods in CKD condition since the process of just purchasing and bringing together or transporting is not a process of manufacture. Accordingly it is clarified that duty would be chargeable on the parts and components of such goods leaving the factory on the condition in which they are removed. Thus, if together they can be regarded as chimney or tank or scrubber in CKD condition or having the essential character of the aforementioned goods, they....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bought out items is to be added for computing assessable value in the case of composite contract for setting up the plant at a given site. In these circumstances, the contention of the Revenue is that, in view of the above decisions, the demand is rightly made. 9. In reply, the contention of the appellants is that in the case of Mil India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held that whether the value of bought out items should be added for computing the assessable value would depend on the facts of each case. Even erection of a plant by assembling certain items at site would constitute manufacture under the excise law. In the present case, the contention of the appellants is that there is no finding by the Commissioner of Cent....