TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 981
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ahir 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 conditioning systems such as Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS)/Inverter/Constant Volta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 not actually manufacturing any goods therefore, it was proposed that the clearan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eements 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 and Shri Jayesh R. Shah were lying with Shri Zahir I. Laliwala Director of M/s XPSPL, which makes it clear that there was full control on M/s X....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 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 all the five entities were having separate manufacturing premises till the communal riots in Gujarat that took place in February, 2002 and it was only thereafter that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting, 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 (25) ELT 90 (Tribunal) * Pimpri Gases, Pune & sanghi Gases, Pune Vs. Collr.- 1990 (16) ETR 157 CEGAT, New Delhi * Prime Control (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.Ex. Pune- 1994 (72) ELT 62 (Tribunal) * Alpha Toys Ltd. Vs. Collector ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 2.3 As regard the inclusion of value of battery in the assessable value of UPS/Inverter/Constant Voltage Transformer, he submits that the entire demand was confirmed on the batteries on the ground that UPS cannot function as a source of Uninterrupted Power without the battery and hence battery is an integral part of UPS. He submits that uninterrupted power was only one of the function of UPS whereas, there was other more functions for which UPS was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egral 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 online UPS was not brought in the factory was correct. 2.6 He submits that the adjudicating authority has committed an error in misappreciating the fact from the statements of Shri Shakeeb Kagdi, Shri Pawan Buch regarding the storage of battery in the factory of M/s. XPSPL. He submits that it was only in respect of offline UPS. The statements given regarding bringing the battery to the factory and storage there of was only in respect of batteries for offline....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T 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 the records. The issue for our consideration are as under:- (i) Whether the value of clearance of M/s. Impex Transformers, M/s. Index Marketing, M/s. Jay Power Protection Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Pruthivi Controls and M/s. Parth Electronics are includable with the value clearance of M/s. XPSPL for calculating the exemption limit under Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 (erstwhile) and notification no.8/2003 dated 1.3.2003 for the period from 1.4.2002 to 16.5.2005. (ii) Whether the batteries were stored in the factory premises of M/s. Xsis Power System Pvt. Ltd. and were cleared from the said factory along with UPS/Inverter/Constant Voltage Transformer. (iii)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout 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 under this Act, other than a proceeding before a Court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a Court From the above, it is clear that whether the assessee demand the cross examination or otherwise, to admit an statement as evidence particularly, in the present case the appellant have produced ample of evidence to discard the contention of the learned Commissioner that all the four units are independent, the burden is more on the Commissioner to cross-examine each and every witness and in failure to do so, all those statements cannot have evidentiary value. This has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, high courts and Tribunal. Some of the judgments are cited below:- * Hon'ble P & H High Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 ACTIVITIES 1 XSIS POWER SYSTEM PVT LTD DIRECTOR ZAHIR I LALIWALA MEENAZ I LALIWALA SURIYA I LALIWALA 08/01/1991 220, 2ND FLOOR, ELLISBRIDGE SHOPPING CENTRE, ELLISBRIDGE Manufacturing and Trading of On-line UPS,Off-line UPS, CVT, Line Conditioner Sealed Maintenance free Batteries, Lead Acid Batteries. 2 IMPACT TRANSFORMER PROPRIETOR YASIN I LALIWALA 22/9/1992 20, GRADUTE PICKER, WORKS COMPOUND, OPP NARODA RLY STATION, NARODA, AHMEDABAD Manufacturing and Trading of CVT, Servo Stabilizer, UPS. 3 JAY POWER PRODUCTION PVT LTD DIRECTOR NAUSHIR Y LALIWALA JAYESH R. SHAH 18/03/2004 Shed No.7, RAMJU ICE FACTORY, OPP.ASPI MOTOR, SARKHEJ NAROL ROAD, SARKHEJ, AHMEDABAD Manufacturing of UPS & Line Conditioners. Manufacturing of Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 clarifications made by Shri Zahir L Lalilwala, Director of M/s. XPSPL during investigation was not considered by the Commissioner. We find that it is fact on record that Shri Zahir I Laliwala had shifted to Bangalore and was not looking after day to day affairs even of his own company i.e. M/s. XPSPL. The allegation of the department that Shri Zahir I Laliwala was looking after the affairs of all the units is contrary to the fact that Shri Zahir I Laliwala was not looking after any activity during the relevant period. 4.3 We further find that all the five manufacturers are registered with various Government Departments separately. They have their own bank accounts, every units sold goods under separate commercial bills. The payment against the said bills were received from customers and the same wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 was allowed to be used by other four company/firm by putting their tables and books of accounts. This averment was made by the learned Commissioner on the basis of the statements of various persons. As we already held that the statements are not beyond doubt therefore, the sole reliance on the statements is not legal and correct. It is admitted fact that all the five manufacturers did have their different rooms/galas in the premises of Ramju Ice Factory Compound and therefore, finding that the manufacturing activities were at the factory of M/s. Xsis Power System Pvt. Ltd. only is even beyond the case of the revenue made out in the show cause notice. Without prejudice, we are also of the view that merely if the common office is used by different persons, this cannot be reason for clubbing as held by va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Shopping Centre but that also belongs to Shri Zahir I Laliwala and not to the company. Only because Shri Zahir I Laliwala of M/s. Xsis allowed his family members to use his premises as their office, the test of financial flow back cannot be satisfied. 4.10 As regard the rent of the premises of all the four manufacturers, they have paid the rent directly to the land lord and it is incorrect to hold that M/s. Xsis Power System Pvt Ltd. had paid rent of all other manufacturers. In view of the above undisputed fact, we find that the department could not establish that all the four units are belonging to M/s. XPSPL and consequently, the value of all these four companies/firms cannot be clubbed with the clearance value of M/s. XPSPL. The issue of clubbing has come up time and again before various forums wherei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight 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 Licences:maintaining separate production and clearance record and G 23 registers verified by the departmental officers from time to time. Charge of being related on in affect being only one unit not sustainable. * In the case of Diamond Engineering & Trading Corpn. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. - 1989 (44) ELT 92, the Tribunal has held as under : It is held that value of clearances - clubbing of clearances partners of the two firms closely related but one is proprietor concern and the other is partnership concern - Firms having separate C. Ex. licence, thus are legally distinct entities - clearances of both the firms not to be clubbed together. * The Tribunal in the case of Bhagwandas Kanodia & Ors., Bombay Vs. Collector of C. Ex., Bombay - 1987 (32) ELT 204 (Tribunal) has held as follows: Manufacture by or on behalf - exemption - clubbing of value of clearances o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 clearances - Common Managerial control, a few common directors and advancing of interest free loans by main unit to another units not sufficient to make other units as dummies when they are having independent existence and transactions of without profit sharing, management control or money flow back to the main unit - clearances not clubbable Notifn. No. 175/86. * 1985 (19) ELT 441 (Tribunal) - Jaglivandas & Co. Thane Vs. CCE, Bombay I held that - Manufacture of goods for or on behalf of innocuous circumstances such as use of common premises; telephone, telegraphic address and commonness of partners etc. do not conclusively establish manufacture for or on behalf of one another - Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Against the above referred order, appeal was filed by the Department and the appeal has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1989 (44) ELT 24A. * 1994 (70) ELT 273 (Tribunal) in the case of Nikhildeep Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. - It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es - clubbing of - Third partnership created when the value of clearances of other two units only Rs.9 lakhs each - Partnership concern granted C. Ex. Licences - having all manufacturing equipments and cleared goods under proper gate passes - classification filed by them and approved by department - Monthly RT 12 assessment also periodically assessed by department - financial connection between partnership concern and other two units of appellants not evident - Partnership concern not to be clubbed with clearances of appellant's two units - Notifn. No. 175/86 did. 1.3.86 as it then existed. * 1994 (70) ELT 580 (Tribunal) in the case of LMP Precision Engg. Co.Ltd. Vs. CCE, Baroda - held that - Stray instances of advances given by one company or firm to another normal transaction when properly reflected in accounts. Director of companies although the same as partners of the two partnership firms but one company not controlling other three units. Clearances of the four manufacturers not to be clubbed - Notifn. No. 175/86 dtd. 1.3.86. * 1990 (49) ELT 474 (Tribunal) in the case of Pipri Gases Vs. Collector of Central Excise "Exemption of SI units - value of clearances - clos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....375 (Raj.), the Hon 'ble High Court has held that clearances of two units could not be clubbed even if the units were situated at the same premises, they were manufacturing similar products and were having common management, office, labor and common electricity connection in absence of evidenced of common funding and financial flow back between the units. In this case, one unit was owned by the father-in-law and the other by the daughter-in-law and the father-in-law was looking after both the units and still however, the Hon'ble High Court has held that two units could not be treated as one their clearances could not be clubbed. * In a case between Rang Udyog Vs Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad reported in 1996 (83) ELT 648, the Appellate Tribunal has held that two partnership firms having separate Income Tax and Sales Tax registration and also registered with SI units were two separate manufacturers even though the partners of the firm were related and some of them were common also and there were common workers, machineries and stock of raw materials whereas only one person was controlling both units. The Appellate Tribunal has held that these factors are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r SSI exemption Notification No.8/2002-CE and 8/2003-CE. 4.11 As regard the second question that batteries were stored and removed along with UPS from the factory of M/s. XPSPL and consequential effect of inclusion of value thereof in the assessable value of UPS, we find that the adjudicating authority has heavily relied upon the statements of various persons to arrive at the conclusion that the batteries were stored in the factory of M/s.XPSPL and cleared the same along with UPS. As we already observed above that the witnesses who have given statements have not been examined in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before admitting it as evidence. Merely on the basis of statements it cannot be concluded that the batteries were received, stored and removed along with UPS from the factory of M/s. XPSPL. In some of the cases, witnesses were cross-examined and as an outcome of cross examination it has come on record that except a few batteries that too only for testing UPS, other batteries which were to be sold to the customers who desired the same were not brought nor stored in the factory and such batteries were delivered to the customers directly from the godown wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fline UPS. Shri Kagdi has never admitted before the investigating officers or even thereafter that batteries of online UPS were provided from or stored in the factory of M/s. XPSPL. Similarly, the deposition of Shri Pawan Buch was only as regards commercial matters of the appellant company whereas, the fact about manufacturing of UPS in the factory were clarified by the production manager Shri K.Ravichandran, who deposed and also clarified before the Commissioner during his cross examination that there was no storage for batteries in the factory and the appellant company was not supplying batteries from the factory with UPS or Inverters. On the Commissioner's specific query Shri K.Ravichandran also clarified that batteries were supplied along with offline UPS and Inverters and thus it was clarified by the store keeper in charge of production in the appellant's factory also that batteries only for offline UPS were supplied from the factory and not for online UPS. As regard the batteries supplied with offline UPS there is no dispute as the appellants were including the value of such batteries in the offline UPS. On the appreciation of the above fact supported with various evidences, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry should be held to have been manufactured and cleared by the respondent. In this view, the respondent should have paid duty on the complete system with battery included. It appears that the appellant has considered the branch office to be an extension of the factory. Learned JCDR has advanced an argument to this effect. He has also claimed support from certain earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases. (1) Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin [1994 (71) E.L.T. 508 (T) (2) Final Order No 879/2010 dated 9.6.2010 in Appeal No E/782/2002 (Electronics and Controls Power Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore) [2010 (257) E.L.T. 578 (T)] (3) CCE, Chennai v Mumeric Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2001 (138) E.L.T. 1202 (Tri-Che)] In all the cases cited by the JCDR, complete UPS system including battery bought out from the market was cleared from the factory and the cost of battery was held to be includible in the 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 ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought 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 manufacture was undertaken in such premises so that complete UPSS could be held to have been cleared from the factory on payment of lesser amount of duty. The show-cause notice alleged that testing/charging/synchronizing of battery was done in the branch offices and expenses thereof were added to the manufacturing expenses of the company as borne on the books of accounts. Books of accounts are not found among the documents relied upon in the show-cause notice. No books of accounts have been shown to us by the appellant to support the above allegation. In any case, in the show-cause notice, it is not the case of the Revenue that complete UPSS were cleared in CKD or SKD condition from the factory on the pretext of clearing parts of UPSS. The show-cause notice contains no reference to the commercial invoices issued by the branch offices of the company. On the whole, the case of the Revenue as embodied in the show-cause notice is like a half-baked....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout receiving the goods in the factory of M/s. DBE. Declaration for availing Modvat credit in relation to battery in question was made first time by the assessee only during 2000. The reference of invoices made in the show cause notices have been found to be exclusive of battery only. The delivery of UPS system has been observed to be made under separate duty paying invoice. The delivery of the batteries was made by the assessee at the option of their customers. The said activities related to transaction of batteries have been stated to be the trading activity of the assessee. Relevantly, annexure to the show cause notice has specifically made a mention of the fact of direct delivery of batteries from the suppliers to the premises of the customers of the UPS. In the light of above observations, it appears that no liability for central excise duty is attracted in relation to batteries under the given set of facts." 5. In this view of the matter, when the Revenue does not challenge, and cannot challenge, the verification carried out by its own Superintendent, applying the ratio of the remand order of the Tribunal, we hold that the value of battery cannot be included in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cturer's factory and were directly installed at the Customers premises. Shri Umashankar stated that such distinction was made only on the ground of commercial expediency and that the result was the same where batteries were supplied from the manufacturer's premises or were supplied to the buyers premises from the other source. We find this argument not acceptable since the Tribunal in the earlier cited judgment had made the decision on this ground. 5. Adopting the Logic of Order No. 1060 of 11-6-2002 referred to above, this appeal is allowed with consequential relief, as per law". The above decision of the tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the revenue's civil appeal was dismissed which is reported at Commissioner V/s. Siemens Ltd. reported in 2003 (158) ELT A74 (SC) * A.Z. Electronics-2001 (134) ELT 689 (Tri.-Mumbai) "4. We do not find it possible to see how the fact that battery is an essential part of the UPS (Counsel for the respondent does not deny) determined the includability of these batteries in the value of these systems. Excise duty is on manufacture. If a person manufactures incomplete machine apparatus or equipment the value at which these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....System from M/s. D.B. Electronics and sale of UPS System after addition of battery from Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. are not separately available in the records. The case is, therefore, required to be remanded for correct computation of duty demand. It is accordingly, ordered that Jurisdictional Commissioner shall compute the duty demand in respect of clearances of UPS System along with battery from M/s. D.B. Electronics after including the value of batteries also in the value of UPS System. The demand so computed shall be intimated to M/s. D.B. Electronics and they shall make payment of the same within six weeks of the receipt of such revised duty demand. Appeal is disposed of in these terms. It is also directed that before passing the order of computation of duty the respondent shall be allowed opportunity to submit their case as to the correct amount of duty payable". From the consistent view in the above judgments taken by this tribunal and in one of the case the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it became settled law that when the batteries were supplied separately without supplying from the factory along with UPS, value of the same cannot be included in the value ....