G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)

1. This appeal arises and directed against the Order No. V (48A) 15-59/Adj/86/30 dated Nil January, 1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune.

2. The facts, in brief of the case, are that the appellants are manufacturers of Travel Goods such as suitcases, briefcases etc. in their factories at Bombay, Satara, Paithan & Waluj, all situated in the State of Maharashtra. The appellants-assessee manufacture Travel Bags of various sizes falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 48A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Among them, certain bags which were 26" in size were provided with a special type of bracket at the bottom. These brackets are fitted to these bags at the assessee's factory. These brackets are provided for fixing of wheels to the suit cases to enable them to be carried easily from place to place. These wheel kits are not manufactured by them but are purchased after due payment of duty. These Wheel Kits are accounted separately and supplied to the Dealers and ultimately to the consumers/buyers, if and only if desired by them, according to the appellants. In view of the firm stand taken by the appellants, these Wheel Kits are an optional accessory as it was not fixed to the suitcases before leaving the factory premises and later on supplied in some cases as an optional accessory and not an integral part of the suitcase, the value of the wheel kits was not included in the assessable value of the suitcases. The Adjudicating Authority, i.e., Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Pune, in respect of Satara Unit factory of the appellants has initiated action for short-levy and demanded duty short-paid for non-inclusion of the value of the Wheel Kits in the assessable value of the suitcases and passed the impugned order whereby it was held that value of the Wheel Kits be added to the value of the suitcase and the assessable value of the suit cases be accordingly enhanced for payment of excise duty. Further, the appellants were asked to pay differential duty of Rs. 36,174.87 on clearance of goods (old stock) sold at the higher prices from Depots due to variation in prices. The appellants were fully dissatisfied with these two findings. Hence this appeal.

3. Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned Counsel assisted by Shri K.M. Motasha and Shri Pradeep Jain, Advocates, appeared for the appellants and Department is represented by learned S.D.R., Shri V.K. Sharma.

4. Shri Chandrasekharan, learned Counsel, submitted that prima facie the impugned order suffers from illegality for want of jurisdiction due to the fact that the same issue was already adjudicated by the Assistant Collector who had the jurisdiction in respect of Satara Unit holding that the value of the Wheel Kits is not to be included in the assessable value of the suitcase and this order was challenged by the Department before the Collector (Appeals) who upheld the decision of the Assistant Collector holding that value of the Kits cannot be included and hence in view of this fact that Executive Collector, Pune is not competent to pass order in respect of the same matter which had been disposed of by the Collector (Appeals) and if he considered that the order of the Collector (Appeals) for any reason, is not legal or proper, the proper course for him would have been to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35-B(2) as it was held in the case of Orient Paper Mills, Shahdol v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, reported in MANU/CE/0202/1984 : 1985 (19) E.L.T. 451, but, however, he requested this Tribunal to consider the case on merits as finality is required on the issue of inclusion of value of Wheel Kits in the assessable value to avoid divergent views between the Collectorates in whose jurisdiction the appellants' factories fall. He contended that the findings given by the Collector about the Wheel Kits "as an essential part of the suitcase and leads to marketability", is itself baseless as it i