ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. With reference to the Tribunal’s Final Order No. 695/99-A, dated 25-5-1999, the appellants M/s. Electro Technics (P) Ltd. have filed the present application for rectification of mistake which has been listed as E/ROM/130/99-A.
2. In the appeal filed by M/s. Electro Technics (P) Ltd. against the Or-der-in-Original dated 20-7-1995 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, the matter related to the valuation of the Electric Overhead Travelling (EOT) and Hydraulic Overhead Travelling (HOT) cranes. The issue for consideration was, whether the cost of the bought out items – Down Shop Lead (DSL), Rails Stopper and gantry girders – was includible in the assessable value of EOT/HOT cranes. The Tribunal relied upon the Patna High Court decision in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. UOI, 1988 (33) E.L.T. 297 (Patna). Reference was also made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1992 (59) E.L.T. 3 (SC), Bombay High Court decision in the case of Kamla Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1988 (34) E.L.T. 539 (Bom.), Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Mahendra Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1988 (36) E.L.T. 539 (Guj.) and Tribunal’s decisions in the cases of (i) East End Paper Indus, v. C.C.E., Calcutta-II, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 446 (T); (ii) Uptron India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Allahabad, 1994 (73) E.L.T. 848 (T); and (iii) C.C.E., Bhubaneswar v. Radiant Electronics Ltd., 1996 (85) E.L.T. 102 (T). The Tribunal held as under –
Such cranes were tested in the factory of the appellants before they were dismantled for ease of transport, the cranes in complete form were manufactured by the appellants and the various items even if bought out from outside formed part of the crane. For arriving at the assessable value of the crane, the cost of such bought out items was necessarily to be included and to be taken into account.”
3. We have heared Shri J.S. Agarwal, advocate, and Shri A.K. Jain, JDR, on 1-10-1999 and have gone through the records. In the ROM application, the following points have been made –
(1) That in the aforesaid Final Order, the following error has crept in as though the said point was argued and is in the Final Order passed by the Hon,ble Bench, but there is no finding:
“At page 2 of the order it is mentioned that – He further observed that the value of Down Shop Lead (DSL), Rails Stopper etc., even if purchased from outside were liable to inclusion in the assessable value of the Cranes.”
“At page 4 of the order – it is mentioned that it was detected by the Central Excise Officers that ETPL had not included the cost of DSL, Rails/stoppers and gantry Girders.”
(2) That kind attention of the Hon’ble Bench was drawn to purchase orders where it is mentioned at page 26 of the paper Book:
“Prices of Gantry, track Rails as specified for 72.2 Mts. bay lengths”
“Prices of Down Shop Leads complete with mounting arrangement for 72.2 Mts.”
Photographs were also shown.
(3) That Gantry Rails, D.S.L., Girders etc. are never brought to the factory and it is not possible to bring into the Factory such lengthy and heavy structures to the Factory premises, test the Crane, dismantle it and then transport it to the Buyer’s site.
(4) That besides the fact that the duty liability is on the Goods – in the form these are cleared from the Factory 1998 (26) RLT – 770 (T) at page 549 these are heavy structures in running lengths and the E.O.T. Crane is mounted on these Structures at Buyer’s sites, when only it becomes functional.
(5) That the Hon’ble Bench kind attention is invited to Final Order No. 310 to 316/99-B.l dated 30-3-1999 on a similar issue on identical facts where at Para 7, the Hon’ble Bench had held that:
“However, no duty was leviable on the gantry and Downshop Leads installed at the premises where the Cranes are to work, in the light of the same judgment of the Patna High Court.”
[1988 (33) E.L.T.-397-Patna]
It is submitted that this judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court only has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Bench. (Please refer para 7).
4. We find that in para 8 of the decision, the Tribunal had held as under-
“The fact that some of the parts used in the cranes manufactured were purchased from outside will have no bearing on the assessable value of the cranes. It is seen that what the appellants had manufactured were cranes. The bought out items were integral part of the crane. Their cost was includible in the value of the cranes.”
Thus there is a clear finding with regard to the inclusion of the value of the bought out items like, DSL, Rails Stopper etc.
5. Other points, referred to by the learned counsel, had also been dealt with in detail in the Tribunal’s order and the relevant case law has been referred to at appropriate places.
6. As regards the reference to the Tribunal’s final order No. 310-316/99-B1 dated 30-3-1999, the Tribunal had held that the duty was leviable on the cranes, but in the facts and circumstances of the case when the gantry and DSL were installed at the premises where the cranes were to work, the Tribunal observed that no duty was leviable on such gantry and DSL which were already installed in the premises of the customers. In the present case, the gantry, DSL etc. were purchased by the appellants and the cranes were tested along with these parts and it was only at the time of installation that all the parts after being dismantled were again assembled in the customer’s premises.
7. Thus, we consider that the view taken by the Tribunal in the order dated 25-5-1999 does not contain any mistake. The ROM application is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.