TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; site, where the storage systems are assembled/installed as per specific design or as per the customer's requirement. During the course of verification of private records, it emerged that the appellant also removed bought-out items such as bolts, nuts, corner plate, locking pin etc. to the customers site on their commercial invoices. Department took the view that these bought-out items are essential and integral to the storage systems so assembled at the customers site and therefore their cost is required to be included in the assessable value of the manufactured goods cleared in terms of section 4 of the Act. 2. Show cause notice dated 21.2.2006 was issued to the appellants proposing to include the value of such bought-out items i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght-out items cannot be treated as an essential integral part of the storage system. vi) In many cases, the said components are purchased directly by the clients themselves. vii) The storage systems assembled and completed at the buyer's premises are not exigible to duty being in the nature of immovable property. viii) He relies upon the following case laws:- (a) Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Vs. Commissioner 2004 (171) ELT 281 (Tri. Bang.) which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2006 (199) ELT A130 (SC). (b) Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Final Order No. A/648/WZB/2005/C-III dated 10.5.2005. (c) Cimmc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He takes us to paras 4 and 7 of the show cause notice to buttress his argument. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellants were discharging duty liability in respect of components cleared on storage systems cleared by them such as slotted angles, panels, vertical upright, horizontal bracing, vertical bracing, base plate etc. There is also no controversy on whether the goods assembled at site are required to discharge Central Excise duty thereon, since that is not the allegation in the show cause notice. The only issue that has been alleged in the Notice is that the value of items bought out by the appellants and removed by the appellants along with the other items such as bolts, nuts, co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellant. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph of the decision is reproduced below:- "5. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants for inclusion of the value of bought out items, (uncoaded cards, armoured cables, communication cables, etc.) to the assessable value of Attendance Data Management Systems (ADAMS). The original authority demanded duty of Rs. 54,207/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Interest under Section 11AB was also imposed. Equal penalty under Section 11AC was imposed. It was submitted that ADAMS is a single piece of machine capable of functioning independently usually installed at the entrance of a office/factory. The cards supplied to the employees are inserted in the slo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be considered as accessories only. These accessories are of different types and made of different materials. At the buyers option, these are supplied by the appellants. What the appellants manufactured is only the cistern which is made of ceramics. In these circumstances relying on the various case laws cited by the appellants, we hold that the value of the bough-tout items is not includable in the assessable value of the cistern. The case relied on by the Revenue is distinguishable. In that case the Bombay High Court held that the documents copier machine is not complete without camera and there cannot be a camera without timer and lens. Therefore we allow the appeal with consequential relief by considering the bought-out items as acce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e records placed before us, it is evident that as early as in 13.9.2001 and 14.9.2001, appellants had intimated the department of their intention to start trading in certain items. Possibly in response, the department after almost two years sought clarification vide their letter dated 10.6.2003, inter alia, whether the items bolts, nuts, beam, locking pins etc. are purchased from manufacturers/dealers /open market, whether they had paid duty for the said items and whether they had taken CENVAT credit and so on. The clarifications sought were provided by the appellant vide their letter dated 4.8.2003. Records do not show any further queries or correspondence from the department. The show cause notice, however, was issued only after a gap of ....