Judgment:
1. This appeal against Order-in-Original dated 29-8-1997 passed by the Addl. Collector, Central Excise, Bombay.
2. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of EOT cranes and gas generators was availing the benefit of Notification No. 120/75 and paying appropriate duty. Two Show Cause Notices dated 26-4-1984 and 24-9-1984 were issued, one for the period from June 1982 to July 1983 and the other for the period from February 1984 to June 1984 stating that charges for erection, commissioning and testing at the site and charges for design and engineering which were separately collected were not shown in the invoices and duty was not paid thereon. The notices required, the appellant to show cause against demand on such charges.
Appellant oppose the notices on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. However, the Addl. Collector confirmed demand. Hence the present appeal.
3. The two Show Cause Notices did not invoke the larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11(A)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The first notice dated 26-4-1984 was entirely for the period prior to 6 months from that date and has to be regarded as barred by time. So also the second notice in regard to a part. Annexure A to the Second Notice refers to 4 invoices. Of them first two invoices bear the dates 9-2-1984 to 22-3-1984. The claim in respect of these invoices would be clearly barred by time. Other two invoices bear dates 11-3-1984 and 28-6-1986. The demand in this regard would not be barred by time. Annexure B to the Second Show Cause Notice refers to 21 invoices for commissioning, erection and testing charges. The demand based on last five invoices would be barred by time and the demand based on the first 16 invoices would be within time.
4. On the merits, the appellant did not argued regarding addition of design and engineering charges. It is pointed out that the excisable products came in existence for the factory, were dismantled for the purpose of easy and safe transport, transported and were erected again at the site. In this view, the charges for erection, commissioning testing cannot be included in the assessable value. Thus, the demand referred to in Annexure B to the Second Show Cause Notice could not have been confimed.
5. The result of the above findings is that the demand could have been confirmed only in relation to Rs. 14,800/- referred to in two items in Annexure A of the Second Show Cause Notice. The impugned order is confirmed only in regard to this amount and set aside regarding rest of the demand. The appeal is allowed to the extent.