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 asked the learned representative of the department as to what authority or jurisdiction the Assistant Collector, a lower functionary, had to re-open the issue in respect of cost category I and decide it contrary to the aforesaid orders-in-appeal. The answer given to us was the same as given by the Assistant Collector to the appellants (when they had asked the same question in reply to the impugned show cause notice dated 4-6-1984): that the Assistant Collector was competent to re-open the issue in the light of paragraph 49 of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (1983 ELT - 1986) which became available after the passing of the aforesaid Orders-in-appeal and the remand order dated 30-5-1984 of the Calcutta High Court on the appellants' writ petition which, directed the authorities to decide the appellants' valuation dispute in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. On careful consideration of the matter, we do not agree with the department's view. Paragraph 49 of the Supreme Court judgement aforesaid related to certain deductions from value claimed by the assessee parties under the heading "post-manufacturing expenses" (8 individual cost elements enumerated in paragraph 47 of the Supreme Court judgment). The dispute in the appellants' writ petition before the Calcutta High Court also related to deduction of "post-manufacturing expenses and/or selling expenses and/or selling cost and/or selling profit." Neither the Supreme Court judgment nor the Calcutta High Court's remand order even remotely touched upon the issue whether the articles listed under cost category I above could be considered parts or components of forklift trucks so as to justify inclusion of their value in the assessable value of forklift trucks. The Assistant Collector's action in seeking to revise the orders-in-appeal passed by a superior authority was, therefore, without the authority of law and jurisdiction. Without cogent reasons,, the department could not be allowed to re-open a settled issue [1982-ELT-1 (Bombay) - Camlin Private Ltd., v. U.O.I.]

5. The appellants cited a number of rulings in support of the merits of their case for exclusion of cost category I:

(1) Batteries are indispensable for functioning of the transistor radios. Nevertheless they are not part of the transistors. Same is the position with the are carbons vis-a-vis the cinematograph equipments [38 STC 198 (Kerala)].

(2) A battery cell which is necessary for the use of a transistor cannot be said to be a part of the transistor itself. Leather cases for transistors are accessories to transistors. [MANU/TN/0170/1976 : 40 STC 169 (Madras)]

(3) Typewriter ribbon is an accessory and not a part of the typewriter [MANU/SC/0420/1976 : 39 STC 8 (SC)]

(4) Tool box,