| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/11158 |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
| Decided On | May-07-1997 |
| Reported in | (1997)(95)ELT78TriDel |
| Appellant | Vijayaprakash Industries |
| Respondent | Collector of Central Excise |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]1. arguing for the appellants, shri t. ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) deductions as envisaged under section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the central excise act; and he submitted that the appellants m/s. vijayaprakash industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under t.i. 68 of the old central excise tariff and under chapters 82 and 84 of the new central excise tariff and were availing exemption under notification no. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.2. it was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely bearings, gearwheels, pulleys, rollers, vacuum pump, ridge presses.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.', (int) 3 => '<p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.', (int) 4 => '<p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.', (int) 5 => '<p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.', (int) 6 => '<p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.', (int) 7 => '<p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.', (int) 8 => '<p>Ordered accordingly.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.', (int) 3 => '<p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.', (int) 4 => '<p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.', (int) 5 => '<p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.', (int) 6 => '<p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.', (int) 7 => '<p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.', (int) 8 => '<p>Ordered accordingly.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.', (int) 3 => '<p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.', (int) 4 => '<p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.', (int) 5 => '<p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.', (int) 6 => '<p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.', (int) 7 => '<p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.', (int) 8 => '<p>Ordered accordingly.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.', (int) 3 => '<p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.', (int) 4 => '<p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.', (int) 5 => '<p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.', (int) 6 => '<p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.', (int) 7 => '<p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.', (int) 8 => '<p>Ordered accordingly.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.', (int) 3 => '<p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.', (int) 4 => '<p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.', (int) 5 => '<p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.', (int) 6 => '<p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.', (int) 7 => '<p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.', (int) 8 => '<p>Ordered accordingly.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.', (int) 3 => '<p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.', (int) 4 => '<p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.', (int) 5 => '<p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.', (int) 6 => '<p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.', (int) 7 => '<p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.', (int) 8 => '<p>Ordered accordingly.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.', (int) 3 => '<p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.', (int) 4 => '<p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.', (int) 5 => '<p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.', (int) 6 => '<p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.', (int) 7 => '<p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.', (int) 8 => '<p>Ordered accordingly.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.', (int) 3 => '<p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.', (int) 4 => '<p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.', (int) 5 => '<p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.', (int) 6 => '<p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.', (int) 7 => '<p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.', (int) 8 => '<p>Ordered accordingly.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p align="justify">2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p align="justify">3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p align="justify">4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p align="justify">5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p align="justify">6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p align="justify">7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p align="justify">Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p align="justify">Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs Collector of Central Excise - Citation 11158 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '11158', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1997-05-07', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.</p><p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.</p><p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.</p><p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.</p><p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.</p><p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.</p><p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.</p><p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.</p><p>Ordered accordingly.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(1997)(95)ELT78TriDel', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Collector of Central Excise', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $args = array( (int) 0 => '11158', (int) 1 => 'vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/11158/vijayaprakash-industries-vs-collector-central' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but others cannot be included since they were neither essential nor manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the question of essentiality has not been gone into by the authorities below while adding the cost of bought out items.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. Relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baligha Lighting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 523, he said that since some of the items were optional accessories, same cannot be included in the assessable value.', (int) 3 => '<p>4. After hearing both sides and with reference to the first issue we find that neither this was substantiated before the authorities nor considered by the adjudicating authority on issue of optional accessories and accordingly this issue requires reconsideration. It is settled position now that if the item is only an optional, same cannot be included. But whether item was optional or otherwise, whether it was supplied along with the machinery as an essential part requires to be examined in the light of the various decisions, we are remanding the matter on this issue to the concerned adjudicating authority for re-consideration.', (int) 4 => '<p>5. As regards erection and commissioning charges, it is settled position now that the same cannot be included in the assessable value of the machinery as it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases including in the case of LML Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 359. Accordingly the appellants succeed on this issue.', (int) 5 => '<p>6. As regards deductions claimed by the party under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), we find that though the issue has been claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. It is settled position now that in view of the wordings of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), it is clear that duty to the extent has been paid or payable by the assessee is deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) in determining the assessable value. The concerned adjudicating authority is directed to look into this issue and to deduct accordingly.', (int) 6 => '<p>7. As regards proforma credit, the ld. counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511. It was submitted by him that though the assessee has not claimed proforma credit before the adjudicating authority, nevertheless assessee is entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 56A. Since we are remanding the matter, this aspect also can be looked into by the adjudicating authority and proforma credit, if otherwise permissible, can be granted subject to verification.', (int) 7 => '<p>Accordingly all the issues raised by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms and in the result appeal is allowed by way of remand.', (int) 8 => '<p>Ordered accordingly.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Ordered accordingly.