Full Judgment
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay wherby he did not include duty element of the raw material supplied to them while arriving at the pricing of the finished goods. After elaborately discussing the various points on the inputs is given for payment of duty on the finished excisable goods to avoid the payment of duty on earlier duties paid. In other words, the cascading effect of duty is reduced and he agreed with the contentions raised by the respondents. The Department's contention is that for the purpose of abatement for excise duty allowable only for the duty payable to the article to be assessed and not for the duty paid on required raw materials and components thereof. It is the contention of the Department that duty already paid on the raw materials and of the component is to be added to the costing data for the purpose of determination of assessable value of the finished product, cleared from the factory. This question is not res integra in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria v. Collector - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 676 where the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that duty paid on input in regard to which Modvat credit was available by manufacturer is not includible in the assessable value of final product under Section 41B of the Act and Rule 6(b)(2a) of the Rules. The said view has been further reiterated in the further two judgments of the Tribunal in Arpee Electrical Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai -1997 (92) E.L.T. 110 and Jay Engg. Works Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad 1997 (93) E.L.T. 492. The Department seek to rely on the judgment of Incab Industries 1990 (45) E.L.T. 342. We have to state that Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. Collector 1996 (81) ELT 676 has considered the judgment of the Incab Industries'case held against the contentions raised by the Department.
We are therefore of the view that the appeal does not have any merit and hence appeal is dismissed.