Skip to content


Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Tigrania Metal and Steel - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1998)(100)ELT193TriDel
AppellantCollr. of C. Ex.
RespondentTigrania Metal and Steel
Excerpt:
.....that the cost of grooving operation on the metal materials would be the assessable value and the cost of metal material would not be included in the assessable value. in appeal e/1914/91-a, we have set aside this direction and restored the order passed by the assistant collector confirming the demand.3. the present appeal relates to the demand for the period 21-10-1988 to 1-4-1989 confirmed by the assistant collector denying the benefit of exemption notification no. 281/86. in appeal, the collector (appeals) held that assessable value shall be based only on cost of grooving and shall not include the cost of metal materials. this order is challenged by the department.4. in appeal e/1914/91-a, we have held that assessable value shall include the cost of metal materials and grooving.....
Judgment:
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.

2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of metal rolls for metal rolling mills, filed classification list No. 145/89 proposing classification under Chapter sub-heading 8455.00 and claiming benefit of full exemption under Notification No. 281/86. The Assistant Collector passed an order approving the classification but denying the benefit of exemption. Demand notice was also issued in respect of the period May, 1989 to September, 1989 and the demand was ultimately confirmed by the Assistant Collector. The assessee challenged both orders by way of two appeals before the Collector (Appeals) who passed a common order confirming the denial of the benefit of the notification but directing that the cost of grooving operation on the metal materials would be the assessable value and the cost of metal material would not be included in the assessable value. In Appeal E/1914/91-A, we have set aside this direction and restored the order passed by the Assistant Collector confirming the demand.

3. The present appeal relates to the demand for the period 21-10-1988 to 1-4-1989 confirmed by the Assistant Collector denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 281/86. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held that assessable value shall be based only on cost of grooving and shall not include the cost of metal materials. This order is challenged by the Department.

4. In Appeal E/1914/91-A, we have held that assessable value shall include the cost of metal materials and grooving charges under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rule, 1975. Following the above decision, we set aside the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and restore Order-in-Original No. 41 /89 passed by the Assistant Collector.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //