1. These appeals No. E/396-397-A are at the instance of the Revenue. In appeal 396/93 correctness of Order-in-Appeal No. 754/APPL/IND/92, dated 17-11-1992 is in dispute. In Appeal No. E/397/93 Revenue challenges the Order in Appeal No. 757/APPL/IND/92, dated 25-1-1992 passed by the Appellate Authority. The main appeal is 396 of 93. The question in Appeal 397 of 93 is whether the cost of Rubber Rings, nuts and bolts should be shown in the price list submitted by the manufacturer. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals as follows :- 2. M/s Ramco Industries Ltd. are engaged in the manufacturer of Asbestos pipes and Couplings falling under Chapter Heading 68.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied Rubber Rings together with bolt and nuts which are bought out items. The value of these items was not included in the assessable value of the Asbestos Pipes and couplings manufactured by them. Therefore Show Cause Notice dated 15-2-1991 was issued requiring the manufacture to state why the value of Rubber rings and bolt should not be included for determining the assessable value of their final products. A sum of Rs. 62,753/- was claimed by way of short levy of duty for the period from 27-8-90 to 21-1-91. Respondents gave their written reply. The stand taken by them was that Rubber rings, bolt and nuts which are used by the customers for the purpose of fitting the pipes at the leak proof joints, that they do not constitute part of the product manufactured and that Rubber Rings are neither inserted nor assembled with the pipe fittings in the factory. According to them they were fitted alongwith Pipes and Couplings when it is being laid in the sites. Adjudicating Authority over-ruled this contention of the manufacturer and came to the conclusion that rubber Rings form an essential part of Coupling and pipes. Accordingly he confirmed the demand o Rs. 62,753/- made in the Show Cause Notice. Respondents, manufacturer took up the matter in appeal before Collector (Appeals), Collector (Appeals). He relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Diamond Clock Manufacturing Co. Ltd., -1988 (34) E.L.T. 662 v. CCE Pune and -1992(61) E.L.T. 436 of the Madras High Court, allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the adjudicating authority.Collector of Central Excise v. Shree Pipes Ltd. -1993 (63) E.L.T. 565, this Tribunal had dealt with the question and came to the conclusion that the value of Rubber O'rings is not includible in assessable value of Asbestos Cement Pipes and Tubes. On the basis of various decisions of this Tribunal, Supreme Court and High Courts, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that value of O'rings is not includible in the assessable value of pipes and as per Cuplings. This decision was taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court by the Revenue in Civil Appeal No. 15356 of 1996. That appeal was dismissed on 3-3-97. A report of the decision is in 1997(94) E.L.T. A 243 in which it has been observed : - "Two facts are not in dispute namely, that these 'O' rings are duty paid goods and secondly, that they do not form part of the asbestos pipes supplied. In the circumstances the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the 'O' rings should not be included in the value of the pipes".
The facts before us are identical to the one dealt with by this Tribunal in the decision in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 565 which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. So the argument advanced by the Ld. DR on the basis of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Koran Business Systems Ltd. v. PVR Ramanan, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 48 (Bom.) cannot have any application.
Further, Bombay High Court in that case was concerned with timer lens, screen etc. in the photo copying machine manufactured by the party.
Without timer and lens, the product cannot be a photo copier. No common man will call it photo copier machine if it has no camera and timer. It was on these facts that Bombay High Court took the view that the value of timer, lens screen etc. should also be included in the assessable value of photo copier machine. Such is not the position in the case on hand as far as Rubber 'O' rings and bolt and nuts are concerned.
4. Respondents filed some papers described as cross objection. There is nothing in the order passed by the Appellate Authority to be objected to by the Respondents. The cross objection is ill-conceived.
5. In view of what has been stated above, there is no merit in these appeals. These are accordingly dismissed.