TANTIA CONCRETE PRODUCTS LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three Stay Petitions filed by M/s. Tania Concrete Products Ltd. seeking stay of recovery of the duty amounts which have become due from them as a result of Orders in Appeal passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Cal. bearing Nos. 93/Bol/88 dt. 28-9-1988 in respect of S.P. No. 305/89 [A. No. E(SB)-504/89] and 94-95/Bol/88 dated 29-9-1988 in respect of S.P. Nos. 306/89 and 307/89 [in Appeal Nos. E(SB)-505/89 and E(SB)-506/89]. As the issue is common this common order is passed for all these three cases.

(2.) By his orders the Ld. Collector has confirmed in principle the valuation decision contained in the three orders-in-original bearing Nos. 3/68/AC-3/DGP/87 dated 30-1-1987; 29/68.07/AC-28/DGP/88 dated 26-5-1988; and 60-61/6807/AC(55-56)/DGP/88 dated 21-6-1988 respectively - passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Durgapur Central Excise Division, Durgapur-12.

(3.) THE case the appellants is that the value of the said inserts should not be included in the assessable value. THE Collector (Appeals) in his order upheld the decision of the Assistant Collector on the merits of the case, but held that the demand would be enforceable only for a period of six months from the date of issue of the notice. Aggrieved with this decision the appellants have approached this Tribunal for setting aside the appellate order passed by the Collector. Shri Samir Chakraborty, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, argued that the Concrete Sleepers in question can be manufactured without the inserts. He stated that earlier they were manufacturing the Sleepers without the inserts fitted or embedded in them. Sleepers used to be supplied with holes at appropriate places and were fitted to the rails at site by using the inserts. Subsequently, it was found that it would be more advantageous to imbed the inserts in the Sleepers at the time of manufacture of the Sleepers as they will be held in position firmly. THE Ld. Counsel further argued that the inserts are not essential parts or components of the Concrete Sleepers. He relied upon the decision of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Special Bench-D in A. No. E/2358/84-D being the Order No. 55/1988/D dated January 1988, in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. M/s. Daya Engineering Works (P) Ltd. In this case, the goods and the issue involved are identical with what we have to deal with in the present appeals. THE Special Bench of the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the value of the inserts was not liable to be included for payment of duty. THE same issue was decided in the same manner by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mysore Structurals Limited [1985 (19) E.L.T. 60] Shri Chakraborty also relied upon the decision of the CEGAT Special Bench, in Bridge and Roof Company of India Ltd. [1986 (24) E.L.T. 67 (Tribunal)] and the Calcutta High Court Judgment in the case of M/s. Burn Standard Company Ltd. dated 8-1-1987 in Civil Rule No. 1612(W) of 1978.