ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad.
2. The following issues are to be considered in this case :-
(i) Whether cost of bought out item is to be included in the ssessable value and whether installation charges are to be included.
3. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned SDR arguing for the Revenue submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of video projector. Along with video projector the following items were supplied (i) contact voltage stabilizes, Screen, External Speaker, mount sealing hardware, etc. He submitted that the Assistant Collector has given a clearance for that the party could not produce any instance in which the video projector has been sold without these items. Further, Assistant Collector has observed that all the above items are very much essential for a better and flawless picture & sound, and accordingly cost of such items are to be included in the assessable value. Shri Prabhat Kumar also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. C.C.E., reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 763 (T) wherein it was held that Footrest is an integral part of scooter, and this view was agreed by the Supreme Court as reported in 44 ECR 23J. He also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Auto Control Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. and Ors. reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 156 (T) and 1993 (68) E.L.T. 797 respectively.
4. Arguing for the respondents, Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate submitted that in the case of Shriram Bearings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 255 (S.C.) wherein it was held that cost of accessories not includible in the value of the main article even if said article fitted with the accessories at the time of clearance and no separate price quoted for accessories and main article. He also drew our attention to the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of PSI Data System Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) observing that computer may not be opertable without a software but it would not change the position and cost of firm software is not includible, following the earlier decision in the case of Kores (India) Limited (1977) 1 SCR 837. In that case it was held that a typewriter ribbon was an accessory to a typewriter and not a part of the typewriter, though it might not be possible to type out any matter on the typewriter without the ribbon. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Bombay v. Maharashtra Electronic Corporation Ltd. reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 411 (T) wherein it was held that tape recorder supplied to buyers complete in itself and items such as microphone, carry bag and wind cheater supplied along with tape recorder are accessories to improve its performance and optimum use.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. On both the issues, it appears that the issues are covered by the observations of the Supreme Court referred to above. In the instant case, as can be seen from the finding of the Assistant Collector, he has proceeded to add the cost of the items on the ground that they are essential and without them it cannot be used effectively. Similar grounds were taken in the appeal memorandum. It is not the case of the Department that it is an integral part of the main item. In the absence of that finding and taking into consideration, however, essential it may be, cost of the same cannot be added in view of the observations made by the Apex Court and we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.