ORDER
S.S. Sekhon (T)
1. This appeal has been filed against the Order of Commissioner of (Appeals), who has remanded the matter back for re-consideration and determination of the value of a product supplied to Railways termed as ‘Data Acquisition and Processing Equipment for Modern Oscillograp Cars’. This product was supplied for the Railway wagons, by the appellant manufacturer. For this purpose, he manufactured certain items in his licenced premises and obtained certain other items which are termed by him as ‘brought out items’. The plea of the appellant before us is that the value of such ‘bought out’ items should not be added to the value of the product supplied to the Railways.
2. We heard learned Advocate Shri. S. Raghu, for the appellants, who took us through the decision of the Narha Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and Vs. CCE Hyderabad 1989 (20) ECR 129 SC and para 3 thereof to submit that in their case the ‘brought out items’ are pleaded att all times to be fully manufactured and functional and are in nature of accessories to the item which has been manufactured in their premises. He further submitted, that one of the alleged items, whose value is to be loaded i.e. ‘ruggedisation’ is not any physical existing goods, but are only in nature of charges per set, therefore amounts on account of this alleged item, cannot be added, in any case, they being after removal charges at site.
3. The learned S.D.R. Smt. Radha Arun, appearing for Revenue took us through para 6 of the Grounds of Appeal which is an under:
“The learned Collector failed to appreciate that when the ‘brought out items’ are assembled alongwith some self manufactured items by the appellant. The value of ‘bought out items’ is not includable in the assessable value”, would itself indicate that the items are essential for the performance of the product being supplied to the Railways and therefore the appellants plea taken at this belated stage, of they being in nature of accessories should not be accepted. She further submitted that the appellants at no earlier state, had submitted or taken the case of the ‘bought out item’ being accessories.
4. We have considered the submissions and find-
(a) as regards the valuation, the deductions available in Order No. 586 & 587/1998 of the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case would be applicable and binding in this case also.
(b) As regards the eligibility of the deduction of the value of the ‘bought out items’ we find that there is no finding or determination of the lower authority regarding the nature of the ‘bought out item’. In fact, as regards ‘ruggedisation’ the learned D.R. fairly conceeded that this was not a physical goods, but only certain charges for an activity, this would indicate, that no mind has been applied by the lower authorities, as regards the essential or auxiliary/accessory nature of these ‘bought out items’. If the item is an auxiliary or an assessory, not essential for the final product, then its value, to our mind, cannot be added. However this finding of fact has to be arrived at, for this purpose, since the matter is already in remand before the Assistant Collector, we have to hesitation to allow this appeal, remand the matter and direct the Assistant Collector to determine the nature of these ‘bought out items’ and thereafter determine, whether their values could be added or deduction allowed.
5. For this purpose, the appeal is allowed as remand for re-determination, after following the principle of natural justice. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
(pronounced & dictated in the Open Court)