Order
1. Two issues arise in these appeals by the assessee against a judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
2. The first issue relates to the value for the purpose of excise duty of ball bearings manufactured by the assessee. It was the case of the assessee that the ball bearings were complete when they consisted of the inner ring, the outer ring, the ball or rollers and the cage. Snap rings, sleeve lock devices, cup assemblies, oil seals, eccentric collars, dust shields, etc. were accessories and not necessary for the manufacture of the complete ball bearings. The Revenue, however, argued that the duty liability had to be determined at the time of clearance and the ball bearings had been actually removed from the appellant's factory fitted with accessories. Therefore, the composite value thereof was the excisable value of the ball bearings. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Revenue on the basis that (i) the entire article was cleared as ball bearings; (ii) in the price list, invoices and catalogue, the assessee had quoted the item as ball bearings and the price for the entire article was stated; and (iii) no separate price was quoted for accessories and the ball bearings.
3. It is not the case of the Revenue that the snap rings, sleeve lock devices, etc. are parts of ball bearings. It is the Revenue's case that these are accessories but they were fitted to the ball bearings when the ball bearings were removed from the appellant's factory. The tariff entry at the relevant time (49) read: “49. Rolling bearings, that is to say, ball or roller bearings, all sorts.” Clearly, what fell under this entry were the ball bearings and not what, admittedly, are the accessories thereof. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Tribunal on this issue must be set aside.
4. The other issue related to post-manufacturing expenses in the form of wooden crates used for the purpose of safe transportation and transit insurance. This issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Govt. of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (1995) 4 SCC 349, (1995) 77 ELT 433 The issue shall have to be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi, for determining what is allowable on this account, having regard to the aforesaid judgment.
5. The appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.