TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (8) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in relation to the first mentioned order in original. The appellants were directed to file a supplementary appeal in relation to the other Order-in-Original by 26-8-1983. 2. Sofaras the present appeal is concerned, the facts in brief are that the appellants manufacture certain components of drafting mechanism of ring frames or inter frames. These components are already excise controlled under Item 68. In addition, they obtain certain other duty paid components of drafting mechanism from M/s. S.K.F. They get contracts from textile mills for converting or upgrading drafting mechanism of ring frames and inter-frames already installed in the Mills. In pursuance of the contract, they take their own manufactured parts as well as the duty pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts by allowing deduction of transportation expenses and by setting aside the portion of the demand for duty which was time-barred. The appellants stated during the hearing on 16-8-1983 that though they had pleaded for deduction of erection charges and packing charges in their written appeal memorandum, they would not press for the same, without, however, giving up that point. They pressed for their main plea that the installation work undertaken by them at site in textile mills did not amount to manufacture as no new goods emerged. What they did was to change certain parts of an existing installed machinery. This did not amount to manufacture of a new article. For this, they relied on orders reported at 1981 E.L.T. 720 (G.O.I.) (case of M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... distinguishable inasmuch as the Department did not seek to assess the entire ring frame but only its drafting mechanism while in the Otis case the dispute was whether the complete lift was chargeable to duty. So far as the Arkimetal case was concerned, there could be no parallel between simple articles like doors and windows on the one hand and drafting mechanism on the other. The plea of double taxation was not valid in the appellants' case as it was open to them to take proforma credit of duty already paid under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. He stated that the impugned Order-in-Appeal had not dealt with the point of inclusion of erection charges in the assessable value of the drafting mechanism. Finally, he stated that he was not pressing....