TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 981
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... OIO-03/COMMISSIONER/RKS/AHD-II/2009 19/02/2009 Zahir I Laliwala C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii E/885/2009 OIO-03/COMMISSIONER/RKS/AHD-II/2009 19/02/2009 Jayesh Ramanlal Shah C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii E/888/2009 OIO-03/COMMISSIONER/RKS/AHD-II/2009 19/02/2009 Shakeeb M Kagdi C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii E/1436/2009 OIA-228-229/2009-AHD-II-CE/CMC/COMMR-A-/AHD/S/9-10-A-II-/09 05/08/2009 Xsis Power Systems Pvt Ltd C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii E/1437/2009 OIA-228-229/2009-AHD-II-CE/CMC/COMMR-A-/AHD/S/9-10-A-II-/09 05/08/2009 Zahir I Laliwala C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii As regard appeal No. E/883-885,888/2009, the brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s.Xsis Power System Pvt Ltd. (XPSPL) were having their factory at Ramju Ice Factory compound, Opposite Vishala Hotel, behind Bacha Motors, Narol-Sarkhej Road, Ahmedabad and with effect from 22.07.2005 shifted their factory to Survey No.42A, Plot No.5-B behind Sangam Cinema, Juhapura, Sarkhej Road, Ahmedabad. They are having their registered office situated at 220, 2nd Floor, Ellisbridge Shopping center, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. They were engaged in the manufacturing of various power backup and condit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were found operating from the same manufacturing premises. Further more, it was found that M/s. XPSPL were not found registered with the jurisdictional central excise authorities therefore, they hold all such manufacturing of finished goods which were found lying in a dispatch condition were placed under detention and further placed under seizure on 9.11.2005 for which a separate show cause notice vide F.No.INV/DGCEI/BRU/15/2005 dated 14.11.2005 was issued to M/s. XPSPL through Shri Zahir I Laliwala by the Deputy Director General of DGCEI. This is the subject notice for appeal nos. E/1436/2009 & E/1437/2009. Further on detail investigation, a show cause notice F.No. DGCEI/AZU/36-45/2006 dated 21.12.2006 was issued by the Additional Director General of DGCEI, Zonal Ahmedabad to M/s. XPSPL. In the show cause notice it was contended that the three units M/s. INDEX MARKETING, M/s. IMPEX TRANSFORMERS and M/s. Jay Power Protection Pvt. Ltd. are dummies of M/s. XPSPL as all the three units are situated in the common premises of M/s. XPSPL and common amenities were utilized and in respect of M/s. Pruthvi Controls it was alleged that the same is also controlled by Shri Zahir I Laliwala and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (5) The entire premises where all the units are situated have been taken on rental basis under two separate agreements one by M/s. XPSPL and other by M/s. Jay Power Protection Pvt. Ltd., and the entire rent was born by M/s XPSPL and M/s Jay Power Production Pvt. Ltd and the same is not paid on the account of any other firm. (6) The product shown to be manufactured by all SSI units were in fact manufactured by M/s. XPSPL only and the same were shown as having been manufactured by SSI units and sold to M/s XPSPL. (7) (i) As regard the financial flow back the learned Commissioner contended that Shri Shakeeb M. Kagdi Production Manager of M/s XPSPL and also proprietor of M/s Pruthvi Controls being a common person controls all the Firms/Companies. It is evident that there was a common control of Shri Shakeeb M.Kagadi on all the Firms/Companies. All the units were using common office of M/s XPSPL and there is no evidence for the Company/Firms had paid rent to M/s XPSPL for utilizing office premises of M/s XPSPL. (ii) The cases relied upon by the noticee are not applicable in the facts of the present case. The signed cheque books of Yasin I. Laliwala an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceeded not only the exemption limit of Rs.1 Crore but also the eligibility threshold limit of Rs.3 Crores as provided under Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 and 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003. The adjudicating authority on the basis of the above finding denied the said exemption, confirmed the excise duty demand and also imposed personal penalty on Shri Zahir I Laliwala, Shri Yasin I Laliwala, Mrs. Nashim I Laliwala, Shri Jayesh Shah ,Shri Shakeeb M Kagdi. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 20.2.2009 and 05.08.2009, the appellants filed the present appeals. 02. Shri Aditya Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants reiterates the grounds of appeals made in the appeal memo. He further submits that all the four units, the value of those have been clubbed in the value of M/s. XPSPL were separate entities. He submits that the products in question i.e. Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS)/ Inverter/ Constant Voltage Transformer (CVT) are eligible under small scale industrial unit were entitled for the SSI exemption on the basis of their clearances. He submits that all the five manufacturing units had come into existence at different point of time, that al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these persons were used in the impugned order but these statements are also not an evidence showing that the four firms namely M/s. Impact Transformer, M/s. Index Marketing, M/s.Jaypee Power and M/s. Pruthvi Controls did not exist as independent manufacturer. His contention is also not correct that these four firms did not have independent transactions of their own. He submits that the Commissioner has ignored the clarification about the independent units given by the appellant during the adjudication. With regard to the issue of clubbing of clearances, the appellants relied upon the following decisions:- • Prabhat Dyes and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise- 1992 (62) ELT 469 (Tribunal) • Swastik Egg. Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise- 1992 (62) ELT 313 (Tribunal) • Shri A. Rathinam, Prop. Of Micheal Match Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise- 1992 (60) ELT 451 • Diamond Engineering & Trading Corpn. Vs. Collector of C.Ex- 1989 (44) ELT 92 • Bhagwandas Kanodia & Ors. Bombay Vs. Collector of C.Ex., Bombay- 1987 (32) ELT 204 (Tribunal) • Aroma Apparels, Bombay Vs. Collector of C.Ex. Bombay- 1986....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... four manufacturers. He submits that most important aspect in case of involving clubbing of clearance is financial flow back, in the present case, this test has not been passed. As regard the common administration, he submits that there was no common staff in so far as workers and employees were concerned and only common premises shared by the five manufacturers was also office the located at Ellisbridge Shopping Centre but this office also belongs to Shri Zahir I Laliwala, and not to the company and in any case only because Shri Zahir I Lalilwala of M/s. Xsis Power System Pvt. Ltd. has allowed his family members to use as their office, test of financial flow back will not be said to have been satisfied. He submits that in view of the above facts and the explanation of the appellant, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to have clubbed clearances of the manufacturers viz. M/s. IMPACT TRANSFORMERS, M/s. INDEX MARKETING, M/s. JAY POWER PRODUCTION, M/s. PRUTHVI CONTROLS with the clearance value of M/s. Xsis for denying not only the benefit of SSI Exemption Scheme but also independent existence of these manufacturer therefore, the impugned order on this issue is liable to be set aside.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant also shows that batteries were not required for function of UPS. It is his submission that the Commissioner has misdirected himself as regard the difference between online UPS and Offline UPS (having inbuilt battery) that this difference was explained by the appellant in the adjudication proceeding with reference to the batteries found in the factory premises of M/s. XSIS at the time of panchnama made on 16.5.05. He submits that batteries are not integral part of the uninterrupted power supply (UPS), the UPS can function even without battery. However, this is also an error on the part of the Commissioner in as much as Annexure B to the panchnama dated 16.5.05 made at the factory of M/s. Xsis shows that 3743 batteries were for offline UPS and size of battery itself establishes that batteries of 7AH (i.e. 7 Ampere per hour) and 9AH power were meant for installing in offline for which there was no dispute whereas, other 25 batteries of higher ampere were kept for testing only because it is on record and is accepted by the appellants that few batteries were kept in the factory for testing online UPS manufactured therein therefore, the appellant's submission that batteries for on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of inclusion of value of batteries in the value of UPS, he submits that the adjudicating authority has given detailed finding in Para 42 to 47 to conclude that the value is to be calculated of total clearance for the respective years. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions:- • ALPHA CONVERTING MACHINES P LTD.- 2018 (364) ELT 141 (Tri.-Abad) • GANJAN FABRICS DISTRIBUTORS- 1997 (92) ELT 451 (SC) • KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.- 1994 (71) ELT 508 • MUMERIC ELECTRONIC P LTD- 2001 (138) ELT 1202 (Tri-Chennai) • INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES & SERVICE- 2001 (128) ELT 175 (Tri-Delhi) • ELECTRONICS & CONTROL POWER SYSTEMS P LTD- 2010 (257) ELT 578 (Tri-Bang) • SRI SAI ENTERPRISES- 2010 (258) ELT 448 (Tri-Del) • SYSTEMS & COMPONENTS P LTD- 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC) • GOPAL TEXTILE MILLS- 2007 (215) ELT 558 (Tri-Ahmd) • TEJWAL DYESTUFF INDUSTRIES- 2007 (216) ELT 310 (Tri-Ahmd) • TULSI POLYMERS P LTD.- 2005 (183) ELT 59 (Tri-Mum) 04. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir statements as evidences which is mandated under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is reproduced below:- Section 9D. Relevancy of statements under certain circumstances. - (1) A statement made and signed by a person before any Central Excise Officer of a Gazette rank during the course of any inquiry or proceeding under this Act shall be relevant, for the purpose of proving, in any prosecution for an offence under this Act, the truth of the facts which it contains, - (a) when the person who made the statement is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or whose presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable; or (b) when the person who made the statement is examined as a witness in the case before the Court and the Court is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. 2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceeding und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner has not examined the witnesses, the statements cannot be used as evidence against the assessee. Moreover, in the present case some of the witnesses were cross-examined on the request of the appellant wherein, they have categorically clarified that all the units have a separate rooms/galas. It was also clarified that all these units were conceptualized much before and they were located at different and distant location and the same were relocated only due to the communal riots of February, 2002. This clarification given by the witnesses creates more reason for Commissioner to examine all other witnesses for admission of statements as the evidences. It is observed that the Commissioner has failed to follow the mandatory provision of Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of this, the statements cannot be given a treatment of gospel truth and the same alone cannot be made the basis for deciding the entire case. 4.2 We further find that the appellants have submitted a chart showing the incorporation/setting up of all the units which is reproduced below:- SR. NO. COMPANY NAME DIRECTOR & PROPRIETOR NAME DATE OF INCORPORATION ADDRESS ACTIVI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....munal riots took place in February, 2002 those units were shifted to the above premises. From the above map, it can be seen that out of four units and the main unit M/s. XPSPL were situated in the Ramju Ice Factory Compound but each and every company/firm had a separate and independent premises with entry door. Merely because all the four units were located in one campus, this cannot be the reason for holding that all are working in one premises accordingly, all the five manufacturers had separate factories and manufacturing units. The goods manufactured by the five manufacturers were also separate, the transactions of purchase and sale among these five manufacturers were purely on a principal to principal and commercial basis. All the five manufacturers had purchased required raw material, inputs, etc. on their own. These five manufacturers had their own equipments and infrastructures as well as separate workers and employees also. It is also a fact that all the five manufacturers were not consisting all the member of the same family. Even some are family members but since undertaken separate independent business which is permissible under the Constitution of India. The clarifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est and therefore, it was totally incorrect fact that the Commissioner has considered in the adjudication that Shri Vinod R Patel did not have financial strength and that he was manufacturing goods in the factory of M/s. Xsis Power System Pvt. Ltd. 4.6 As regard M/s. Jay Power Protection Pvt. Ltd., the learned Commissioner has held that the company was discontinued its operation from 31.03.2005 but the fact remains that the documents clearly shows that this manufacturer continued manufacturing and other related activities in the year 2005-06 also and the details of manufacturer's sale, purchase, etc of M/s.Jay Power Production Pvt. Ltd. were detailed in the balance sheet and books of accounts also. 4.7 The adjudicating authority also contended that the Constant Voltage Transformer, Inverter were manufactured by M/s. Xsis Power System Pvt. Ltd., we find that there are evidences which shows that the Constant Voltage Transformer had been manufactured by M/s. Impact Transformers whereas, the products like Inverter and Line Inverter were manufactured by M/s. Parth Electronics. The learned Commissioner also relied upon that a common office premises belongs to Shri Zahir I Laliwala ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....companies/firms. Only because the proprietors/directors of five manufacturing firms belongs to one family or that they were related to one another, the test of mutuality of interest has not been satisfied. The learned Commissioner has held in the impugned order that there was no common control of Shri Shakib M Kagdi on all the firms/companies. Firstly this was not proved beyond doubt secondly this finding does not show financial flow back or any financial transaction inter se. The learned Commissioner also contended that all the five manufacturers were utilising plant and machineries of M/s. Xsis Power System Pvt. Ltd. but this finding is also incorrect in as much as it is found by the investigating officers during investigation that all the five manufacturers had differently demarcated each rooms/galas in one premises located at Ramju Ice Factory Compound and all these rooms/galas had installed therein various machineries, equipments and apparatus in accordance with the requirement of the respective manufacturer. There was no common staff in so far as workers and employees are concerned and only common premises was shared by five manufacturers was the office located at Ellisbridge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Jagjivandas & Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex., Bombay I reported in 1985 (19) ELT 441 (Tribunal), the Tribunal has considered a similar situation. The Tribunal held that circumstances such as commonness of partners, use of common premises, occasional use of machinery of one firm by the other will not be sufficient to justify the clubbing of clearances or to say that it was case of manufacture for or on behalf of another. It is also noted that the decision of the Tribunal in Jagjivandas & Co., Thane, has since been upheld by the Supreme Court which had dismissed on 2.8.1989 the Civil Appeal No. 4173 of 1986 filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. • In the case of Shri A. Rathinam, Prop. of Micheal Match Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise - 1992 (60) ELT 451 it has been held that :- for SI exemption the clubbing of clearances of eight match factories situated in the same compound and having a common trading agent - on the date of visit by Central Excise Officers, manufacturing activity going on only in one factory and normal equipment in the other seven factories not showing signs of having been used - But all eight factories having separate L-4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....phone is concerned would not go to prove that both the units are one in the eye of law. This issue is already decided in the following cases also : • Jawant Sugar Mills Ltd. Meerut Vs. UOI & Ors. • Jagjivandas & Co. (supra) Tribunal. • Shree Packaging Corporation (supra) Tribunal. • 1994 (72) ELT 62 (Tribunal) in the case of Prima Control (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. Pune - held that SSI exemption - value of clearances - clubbing of holding of shares by common Directors not to make one company a subsidiary of another; especially when both companies are geographically apart without any financial flow back - sufficient evidence not produced by department to show that one company is a dummy unit of another - value of clearances of two companies not to be clubbed - exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE dtd. 1.3.1986 available. • 1994 (71) ELT 689 (Tribunal) in case of Alpha Toys Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex., New Delhi - held that SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - "Dummy Unit" - meaning Section 5 of C. Ex. & Salt Act, 1944 - Notifn. No. 175/86 dtd. 1.3.86. SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for exemption when certificate of registration; partnership deeds; balance sheets and income tax assessment etc. indicative of the firms being two distinct legal entities - Notifn. No. 89/79 dtd. 1.3.79. • 1989 (43) ELT 327 (Tribunal) in the case of M/s Kinjal Electricals Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Collector C. C. E. - held that Value of clearances- exemption - Firms having separate legal entities and having no financial flow back between the two - clearances of the two firms not to be clubbed together although proprietor of one is clearly related to the Director of the other - Notifn. No. 83/83. • 1991 (53) ELT 85 (Tribunal) in the case of International Dyestuff Mig. Co. Vs. C.C.E - held that value of clearances - SI exemption - eligibility of exemption under Notification No. 71/78 - close relationship between partners of one firm and proprietor of other concern; and use of staff not sufficient to hold that units are one and the same justifying of clubbing of value of clearances. • 1994 (72) ELT 893 (Tribunal) in the case of Lakshmi Industries Vs. C.C.E - held that value of clearances - clubbing of - Third partnership created wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SI exemption - clubbing of clearances - proprietor of a proprietary unit also a partner along with his wife in another unit - clearances of the two units not clubbable despite common use of some staff - two units registered separately with sales tax and income tax authorities - value of clearances not clubbable. CE" • 1991 (54) ELT 135 (Tribunal) Sahuwals Cylinders Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. " SI exemption - Units registered as SI - when the authority issuing the certificate has declared that the unit has obtained SI status - there is no reason why the appellant should be denied the entitlement to the benefit extended to SI units and similar view was taken by Tribunal in the case of Collector of C. Ex.. Madurai Vs. Maharaja Paper Board (P) Ltd., reported in 1986 (23) ELT 484 . clause 4 of Notification No. 175/86-CE makes it a condition that a factory should be registered with the Director of Industries as a ssi and once such a certificate is issued with an emphasis that unit has obtained status of S.S.., it should be taken as sufficient fulfillment of the condition to avail the benefit " • In a judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itution and incorporation, they could not be considered to be a dummy of another because even the managerial control should involve flow back of profit to the principal manufacturer. • In a case of Process Plant (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bombay reported in 1999 (32) RLT 651, the Appellate Tribunal has once again held that commonality of interest by way of common management, common directors, supply of entire production by three units to only one unit, purchaser paying advances to three units, etc. were not sufficient factors to treat three units as dummies of the fourth one. In view of the above catena of judgments and the observation made therein, we find that even in worst scenario than the charges made in the present case by the revenue, the various forums have held that clearances of different units cannot be clubbed and consequently, the exemption to SSI Unit cannot be denied. Following the decisions and the ratio made therein in the above judgement, we are of the view that the value of all four units namely M/s. Impact Transformers, M/s. Index Marketing, M/s. Jay Power Protection Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Pruthvi Controls cannot be clubbed with the value of M/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this regard, it is the submission of the appellant that out of 3768 batteries, 3743 number of batteries were meant for offline UPS as the size of the batteries itself establishes that batteries of 7AH and 9AH power were meant for installing an offline UPS for which there was no dispute whereas, other 25 batteries of higher ampere were kept for testing only because it is on record and accepted by the appellant also that few batteries were kept in the factory for testing of online UPS manufactured therein. The said submission of the appellant has strong force therefore, the learned Commissioner's contention that these 3768 batteries since lying at the factory was made the basis to hold that the appellant were receiving batteries in factory is absolutely incorrect. We find that even during cross examination of the appellant's production manager, he has confirmed the above position. With this fact, we find that the reason for holding that the batteries for online UPS were stored and cleared alongwith UPS by the learned Commissioner is absolutely contrary to the above fact hence, the contention is not acceptable. 4.13 We further observed that Shri Shakeeb M Kagdi in his statement r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e considered is whether the cost of battery bought out from the local market and cleared as part of UPSS (Uninterrupted Power Supply System) from the Branch Offices/Sales Offices of the 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 the market were clubbed with the above goods and UPSSs with battery were cleared from the premises to the ultimate customers. It is the case of the Revenue that the testing/charging/synchronizing of the battery with the equipment manufactured and cleared from the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 689 (T-Mum)] (3) Supercold Refrigeration Systems Pvt. Ltd. v CCE [2005 (119) ECR 58 (T-Bang) = 2005 (191) E.L.T. 379 (Tribunal) [Department's appeal against this decision was dismissed vide 2006 (193) E.L.T. A23 (S.C.)] (4) CCE v. Jeetex Engg. Co. [2001 (130) E.L.T. 801 (Tri. - Che)] (5) Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (169) E.L.T. 274 (T-Del)] Reliance has been placed on the above decisions in support of the counsel's plea that the cost of bought-out components cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared from the factory. It is submitted that the case developed by the Revenue in the present appeal is beyond the scope of the show-cause notice wherein it had not been alleged that UPSS was cleared as a complete set with battery from the branch office seemingly reckoned as an extension of factory. It was also not alleged in the show-cause notice that manufacturing 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 Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....should be assessed in the form it was cleared from the factory. The Tribunal's decisions in other cases of the same assessee, wherein battery was an integral part of the UPSS in the form it was cleared from the factory, cannot be applied to this case. In this connection, the decisions cited by the learned counsel seem to be supportive of our view. The documents (invoices) produced by the learned JCDR are not of any aid to the case of the Revenue as made out in the show-cause notice. In the result, this appeal of the Revenue gets dismissed". • DB Technologies Pvt. Ltd.-2009 (238) ELT 100 (Tri.-Mumbai) "4. We find that the Tribunal in its order reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1017 (final order No. 184/2000-A dated 16-3-2000 in appeal No. E/1395/95-A) has clearly held that the value of batteries is to be added to the assessable value only in cases where the UPS systems were cleared from DBE along with battery. The Commissioner has conducted verification through the Superintendent of Central Excise who has reported categorically as under :- "The documents have been verified. Nothing has been identified evidencing clearance of batteries along with UPS. Howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. Appeal No. E/2058/03 is thus allowed by way of remand". • Siemens Limited- 2002 (150) ELT 422 (Tri.-Mumbai) "3. We have examined the judgments. In the latter cited judgment, the Tribunal had departed from their earlier judgment in the case of Tata Libert Limited [2000 (121) E.L.T. 474 (T) = 2000 (39) RLT 1006] and had adopted the ratio of the judgment in the case of C.C.E. v. Jeetex Engineering Limited [2000 (130) E.L.T. 801]. In the judgment, the Tribunal noticed that the manufacturer had manufactured incomplete UPS and had arranged to supply the batteries as trading activity. The ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Shri Umashankar relies upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Supra Hi-Tech Electro Equipment (P) Ltd. [1997 (93) E.L.T. 604] where the value of batteries was held as includible in the value of the UPS. Shri Prakash Shah distinguished this decision of on the observation that in that case, the batteries were supplied from the manufacturer's factory along with the UPS system. The learned Departmental Representative also cites judgment reproduced in 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of the Tribunal in CCE, Coimbatore v. Jeetex Engineering Ltd., 2001 (130) E.L.T. 801 cites eight decisions holding in favour. The decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. D.B Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1017 (T) = 2000 (39) RLT 913 is specifically on the issue before us - inclusion of the value of batteries in the value of UPS. The decision of the Tribunal in Tata Libert Ltd. v. CCE, 2000 (121) E.L.T. 474 (T) = 2000 (39) RLT 1006 is also proceeded on the footing that the batteries were essential part of UPS". • D.B. Electronics P. Ltd.-2000 (126) ELT 1017 (Tribunal) "2. We have perused the records and considered the submissions. The allegation that M/s. Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was related to M/s. D.B. Electronics is obviously not sustainable in view of the share holding pattern itself. Further, it was being managed by Mr. H.V. Joshi and the 2 partners of D.B. Electronics were also removed from its Board of Directors in March, 1991. Therefore, the allegation of relationship between two companies is not sustainable and the demand of duty has to be determined with reference to manufacture and removal from M/s. D.B. Electronics. We, therefore, ho....