Full Judgment
2. Learned DR relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Glaxo (I) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Kanpur - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 451 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court [1996 (84) E.L.T. A160]. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Geoferey Manners and Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune -2001 (138) E.L.T. 1418.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in consonance with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shriram Bearings Ltd. v.C.C.E., Patna - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 255 (S.C.). Reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in PSI Data Systems Ltd. v. C.C.E.4. In Shriram Bearings Ltd., the issue came up for decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was one relating to the value for the purpose of excise duty of ball bearings manufactured by the assessee. According to the assessee, the ball bearings were complete when they consisted of the inner ring, the outer ring, the ball or rollers and the cage. Snap rings, sleeve lock devices, cup assemblies, oil seals, eccentric collars dust shields etc. were accessories and not necessary for the manufacture of the complete ball bearings. On the other hand, Revenue contended that duty liability had to be determined at the stage of clearance and the ball bearings had been actually removed from the appellant's factory fitted with accessories. Therefore, according to Revenue, the composite value thereof was the excisable value of the ball bearings. Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accept the contention raised by the Revenue. After referring to the tariff entry at the relevant time which read, "rolling bearings, that is to say, ball or roller bearings, all sorts", the Supreme Court observed that what fell under this entry were the ball bearings and not what, admittedly, are the accessories thereof. Under these circumstances, it was held that value of accessories cannot be added to the assessable value of the ball bearings.
5. We find that the ratio of the above decision is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. The syringe was admittedly a bought out item and not an integral part of the medicine which was manufactured and cleared by, the assessee and therefore its value cannot be added to the assessable value of the P & P medicine. We find that the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in consonance with the ratio of the above decision of the Supreme Court. In the result, there is no merit in the appeals by Revenue and they stand dismissed.