Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (8) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue of certain bought out items in the assessible value of the goods cleared by them; the appellants deposited Rs.20 Lakhs during the investigation. A show-cause notice dated 01.04.2010 was issued demanding duty of Rs.40,36,615/- along with the applicable Cess, interest and penalties. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty; on an appeal filed, Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order dated 29.03.2012, the impugned order, reduced the duty after allowing cum-duty benefit and confirmed duty demand of Rs.35,29,617/-; the appellants accepted the duty demand of Rs.23,50,637/- and paid the same along with interest and 25% of the penalty and have disputed the issue relating to the inclusion of the value of the bought out ite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....does not subject the bought out items to any manufacturing process; the activity does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He relies upon the following cases: * BREW FORCE MACHINES PVT. LTD. -2016 (333) E.L.T. 468 (Tri. - Del.) * CC VS VOLTAS LTD.- 2006 (196) E.L.T. 358 (Tri. - Mumbai) * AIR CONTROL & CHEM. ENGG. CO. LTD- 2005 (181) E.L.T. 242 (Tri. - Mumbai) * INTELLICON PVT. LTD.- 2014-TIOL-1231-CESTAT-AHM * KORES (INDIA) LTD.- 2014-TIOL-167-CESTAT-MUM. * SUR IRON & STEEL CO. (P) LTD.- 2018 (363) E.L.T. 373 (Tri. - Kolkata) * THERMAX LTD.- 2009 (235) E.L.T. 737 (Tri. - Mumbai) * KERALA STATE ELECTRONIC DEV. CORPN.- 2008 (224) E.L.T. 88 (Tri. - Bang.) * XI TELECOM LIMITED- 1999 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctures etc. that are used by two-wheeler service stations; the appellant's claim that as per the request of the customers, they are purchasing the bought-out items and supplying the same along with bought out items. Whereas, they are purchasing and supplying 103 bought out items, the Department proposes to include the value of 4 items as cited above. The Department relies on the statements of experts in the field, however, the said experts were categorical in stating that the equipment sold by the appellants function independently and do not depend on the other tools supplied along with the same. In spite of such categorical statement, the Department proceeded to include the value of 4 bought-out items. 5. We find that Shri B.N. Pandey, Pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are accessories supplied by the appellants, as bought-out items, are essential for the functioning of the excisable goods supplied by them. The show-cause notice or the impugned order do not make it clear as to why only 4 out of 103 bought-out items were considered for inclusion in the assessable value of the systems said to have been manufactured by the appellant; the only reason cited was that the systems as well as the bought-out items were cleared under the same invoice; it is not clear as to how, in such circumstances, other items, than the 4 discussed above, are not considered for inclusion. Therefore, we find that no evidence has been brought out to prove that the parts supplied as bought-out items by the appellants are integral pa....