Per G.A. Brahma Deva : These are 9 appeals filed by the Department involving common issues. Therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Shri G.K. Mundhra, learned Representative, appearing for the party submitted that whether installation and commissioning charges are to be included in the assessable value of Electronics Automatic Private Branch Exchange (EPABX) manufactured by the party is an issue to be considered in appeal Nos.E/ 5714 and 5715/92-A and in the remaining appeals in addition to the above issue, whether cost of cable and cabling charges is to be included in the assessable value, is also to be considered.

3. M/s. Radiant Electronics Ltd., Bhubaneshwar submitted a few price lists in part II decling the prices of Electronics Automatic Private Branch Exchange (EPABX) manufactured by them for approval. Assistant Collector while finalising the approval of the price lists held that installation and charging of telephones plus cabling charges were includible in the value of the EPABX and, accordingly, ordered that amount should be added to the value declared in the price lists. It was contended before the authorities below that there was no nexus between the manufacturing activities and these charges and, accordingly, the installation/commission charges as well as cabling charges were not to be included in the assessable value since they were being option in nature. They also submitted that all these activities are undertaken outside the factory of manufacture of EPABX and as such has got no bearing on the value of EPABX. As regards installation commission charges the contention of the party was accepted by the Collector (Appeals) and inter-alia he directed the Assistant Collector to redetermine the assessable value after excluding the extra charges realised for commissioning the telephone instruments which were bought out items. It seems in some cases even after remand, the Assistant Collector held that installation and commissioning charges shown in the contracts were includible in the assessable value of EPAET . These orders were again challenged by the party before the Collector (Appeals) and in turn the Collector (Appeals) again remanded the matter observing that the Assistant Collector was found to comply with the directions as given in earlier order. As regards cabling charges he has remanded the matter with a direction to redetermine the assessable value. Against all these orders the Department has come before us by way of these appeals.

4. In the Grounds of appeals the Department has taken the plea that the Collector (Appeals) has erred in his order in holding that the extra installation/ commission charges are not relatable to the assessable goods, i .e., EPABX system. But on the scrutiny of the relevant price list alongwith contract papers in respect of the price list, it is noticed that the assessee has collected Rs. 150/- to Rs.200/- per Telephone line of the EPABX. Therefore, the contention of the Collector (Appeals) that no extra installation charges were recovered from the customers where EPABX system were supplied, without Telephone connection is not correct. It was also contended that the assessee were selling EPABX system which unless installed does not become functional and installation and commission charges has, therefore, a direct bearing on the sale of the system. Since these charges will enrich the value of product and any expenses on that account to enrich the marketability of the product is liable to be included in the assessable value in term of Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Bombay Tyre International. These grounds have been reiterated in the Written Submission filed by the learned Departmental Representative and as regards the issue of cabling charges, it has been stated that Department has no objection for remanding the matter since such identical issue in the case of same assessee has already been remanded by the CEGAT vide Order No. 1