Mecneill and Magor Ltd. VS Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

M.GOURI SHANKAR MURTHY, K.L.REKHI
Mecneill and Magor Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
R.N. Bajoria, S.K. Bajoria, Roopa Seth,S. Krishnamurthy

ORDER

K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)

1. On hearing both sides, we observe that the appellants are agitating for exclusion of the following two sets of costs which the lower authorities have added to the value of their forklift trucks for the purpose of assessment of central excise duty:-

I. Cost of

1. Battery and its initial charging.

2. Battery charger

3. Attachments and accessories such as load back rest, extra set of lights, ram attachment, crane attachment etc.

II. Cost of

1. Packing

2. Forwarding charges or loading/unloading charges.

2. The period relevant to the controversy is from 15-10-1982 to 31-7-1983.

3. We find that the point at issue for cost category I above stood settled in the appellants' favour by the following orders-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector/Collector (Appeals) in the appellant's own case:-

(1) Order-in-appeal No. 262/Cal./82 dated 31-3-1982 (for battery and battery charger).

(2) Order-in-appeal No. 269/Cal./83 dated 23-2-1983 (for battery).

(3) Order-in-appeal No. 462/Cal./83 dated 30-3-1983 (for accessories).

We are informed that no appeal was filed by the department against an of the aforesaid orders-in-appeal. These orders, therefore, became final.

4. We ask

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

M.GOURI SHANKAR MURTHY, K.L.REKHIMecneill and Magor Ltd. – AppellantVersusCollector of Central Excise, Calcutta – Respondent

M.GOURI SHANKAR MURTHY, K.L.REKHI
Mecneill and Magor Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta – Respondent