Holding

The Court held that the show‑cause notice pertained to undervaluation, not classification; General Interpretative Rule 2(a) does not apply, and the parts must be taxed under their own headings, but the Commissioner must de novo determine the valuation of the whole package.

Summary

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice alleging that Mis Frick India Ltd. had undervalued compressors and overvalued the accessories supplied separately, thereby evading excise duty. The assessee argued that the fly‑wheel, safety valve and filter were separate goods classifiable under their own tariff headings and not parts of the compressor, relying on Note 2 to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The CEGAT held that the compressor was a stand‑alone item and that the General Interpretative Rule 2(a) did not apply, but remitted the valuation issue to the Commissioner. The Supreme Court affirmed that the show‑cause notice concerned undervaluation, not classification, and that Rule 2(a) was inapplicable; the parts must be taxed under their respective headings. However, the Court found merit in the Department’s valuation claim and directed the Commissioner to re‑examine the value of the entire package, possibly invoking Section 14A for a special audit. The civil appeals were partly allowed with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

The applicability of General Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule to the classification of compressors and their parts.
Whether the fly‑wheel, safety valve, filter and other bought‑out items are to be classified as parts of the compressor or as separate goods under their own tariff headings.
The correct assessable value of the compressor package for excise duty purposes, i.e., whether the value of accessories should be included in the compressor’s assessable value.
The authority of the Commissioner to re‑evaluate valuation and the possible use of Section 14A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Legislation cited

Central Excise Act, 1944s. Section 14A, s. Section 35-L(b)
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985s. Note 2 to Section XVI, s. Part III Section XVI, s. Part V Section XVI, s. Section XVI

Subjects

central excisevaluationclassificationGeneral Interpretative Rule 2(a)parts of machinetariff headingsspecial auditSection 14Aundervaluation

Judgment

A COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI
v. ~

MIS. FRICK INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2007
B [S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]

Central Excise Tariff Act, I 985; Rules for Interpretation of the
Schedule; r. 2(a) to s. XVI of HSN: +
c Valuation-Assessee manufacturing air-conditioning and
refrigerating machinery-Clearance of compressor with fly wheel,
safety valve, filter and other bought out items from the factory
separately-Notice-Authorities observing that assessee deliberately
undervalued the compressor and overvalued the accessories by
D supplying the accessories/parts separately to buyers, confirmed demand
of differential amount of duty-Tribunal remitting the matter to
Revenue holding that the compressor as cleared by the assessee from
the factory stood cleared as stand alone item and not removed in an
unassembled condition, therefore, general interpretation rule not
E applicrrble-On appeal, Held: There is confusion in application ofthe
concept of valuation and classification by the Revenue while
confirming the demand ofdifferential amount of excise duty-Thrust
ofshow cause notice is towards undervaluation and not classification-
Tribunal rightly observed that General Interpretation Rule has no i
_J.
F application to the present case and that parts/accessories could not
have been classifiable as compressor under tariff Heading 84. I 4-
Since assessees supplied accessories and other bought out items to
buyers as a package, the Revenue should have examined the pricing
aspect of the entire package for the purpose of assessment/levy of
G excise duty-Under the circumstances, Revenue is directed to de novo
,,.._
consider the question ofvaluation in terms ofthe provisions ofthe Act
in addition to other question as remitted by the Tribunal-In doing so,
services ofthe cost accountant may be utilized to arrive at correct value
of the package-Directions issued.
H 172
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI v. 173
MIS. FRICK INDIA LTD.
Assessee manufactures air-conditioning and refrigerating A
machinery and appliances including compressors, fly wheel, safety '
valve and filter falling under tariff sub-headings 8414.10, 8483.00
and 8421.00 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Apart from 1

these items, assessee supplied to its buyers certain bought-out items.
A Show Cause notice was issued by the Revenue alleging that the' B
assessee had knowingly cleared manufactured items and bought-out
items separately from its factory and trading office respectively; that
the value of the bought-out items and manufactured items were
includible in the assessable value of the compressor as without these
items the compressor was non-functional; that the assessee had C
deliberately undervalued the compressor and overvalued the
accessories/parts which were supplied separately to the buyers; that,
there was a difference between the cost price and the declared
assessable value for compressor and in the circumstances the
assessee became liable to pay differential amount of duty amounting D
to Rs.4,46,19,392.65 on these items during certain period. In
response to the Show Cause Notice, the assessee stated that these
three items were not classifiable as "compressor" under tariff
Heading 84.14. In this connection, reliance was placed by the
assessee on Note 2 to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, E
1985. The Commissioner held that the manufactured items and
bought-out items were parts of the compressor, as the compressor
was non-functional without such bought-out items and confirmed the
Show Cause Notice. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appe'l
before CEGAT which took the view that the compressor, cleared by
the assessee, stood cleared as a "stand-alone" item and that it was F
not removed in an unassembled or disassembled condition and,
therefore, there was no question of applying General Interpretative
Rule 2(a), Part-V Section XVI of HSN; that, similarly Part-III of
section XVI oflnterpretative Notes of HSN was not applicable as
the compressor was cleared as a "stand-alone" item. The Tribunal G
held that Revenue had erred in classifying the items used in the
compressors. Sinc·e the said items were classifiable under specific
headings by virtue of Note 2(a) to Section XVI of the Central Excise
Tariff Act, 1985, the said three items could not have been classified
as "compressor". However, on the question as to whether the H
.w-
.. , /

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A asses see had transferred the value of the compressor to the value
of the parts and also on the question of under valuation of the
compressor, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner. Hence
the present appeals.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
B
HELD:l.1. Chargeability from excise duty is on the
manufacture of excisable goods. The assessee has to pay duty on
the manufacture of such goods. With chargeability, question of
quantification of duty comes in. Classification decides the applicable +
c rate. It is followed by valuation i.e. value on which the rate is to be
applied. The concept of"classification" is, therefore, different from
the concept of"valuation". In the present matter there is confusion
in application of the aforestated two concepts by the Commiss~oner.
[Para 14] [182-E-F]
D
1.2. The thrust of the show Cause Notice is towards
undervaluation and not classification. This is made clear even in the ).._
order of the Commissioner. The Tribunal rightly observed that the
General Interpretative Rule 2(a) for Interpretation of Statutes has
no application to the present case for two reasons. Firstly, the
E compressor manufactured by the assessee was removed as a "stand-
alone" item.It was not cleared in an unassembled or disassembled
condition. Secondly, section and chapter notes in Central Excise
Tariff Act, 1985 and the Interpretative Rules do not provide
guidelines for valuation of excisable goods as they decide -1..._,
F classification of a product under different headings/sub-headings of
the tariff. Lastly, under Note 2(a) to Section XVI of the Central
Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as well as Note 2(a) to Section XVI of HSN
read with Explanatory Note referable to Parts of a Machine in HSN
clarifies that payment of duty at the appropriate rates, relevant to
G the respective headings alone, shall apply.
[Paras 14and15] [182-F; 183-D-E-F] ~

1.3. However, there is merit in these civil appeals filed by the
Revenue on the question of valuation. [Para 16] [183-H; 184-A]
H
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI v. 175
M/S.FRICKINDIALTD. [KAPADIA,J.]
1.4. In the present matter, along with the "stand-alone" A
'f compressor, the assessee has supplied fly wheel, safety valve and
filter to its buyers. They have also supplied the bought-out items to
their buyers, as a package. Therefore, on the question of valuation,
the Commissioner should have examined the pricing aspect of the
entire package supplied by the assessee to its buyers. These aspects B
have not been considered by the Commissioner, therefore, in addition
to the question remitted by CEGAT to the Commissioner, he is also
directed to de novo consider the question of valuation. In this
connection, the Commissioner will call for the cost statements and
shall also ascertain the manner in which the assessee has priced its C
goods. The Commissioner may also consider invocation of Section
14A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which deals with "special audits
, in certain cases". In the present matter "costing" as a concept will
play an important role and, therefore, if the Commissioner so deems
fit he can order special audits and call for the report of the cost
accountant to assist him (Commissioner) to arrive at the correCt D
value of the entire package cleared by the assessee from its factory
gate. [Para 16) [184-A-B; D, E, F)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1825-
1827 of 2002. E.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.2001 of the Customs,
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Final Order
No. 354-356/2001-A in Appeal Nos. E/1151, 1192/2000-A and E/3402/
2001-A.
F
Mohan Parasaran, ASG, Raghavendra Rao, Rahul Kaushik and B.
Krishna Prasad for the Appellant.
S.K. Bagaria, Rupesh Kumar, Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam
Sharma for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KAPADIA, J. 1. These civil appeals are filed by the Department
under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order
passed by CEGAT dated 18.9.2001 in Final Order No. 354-356/2000-
A, in Appeal Nos. E/1151 and 1192/2000-A, E/3402/2000-A whereby H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee (respondents).
2. Assessee-M/s. Frick India Ltd., Faridabad, (.M/s. FIL)
manufactures air-conditioning and refrigerating machinery and appliance~
classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
B 3. Assessee cleared compressors falling under tariff sub-heading
8414.10. They also cleared to its buyers separately "fly wheel" under
separate tariff sub-heading 8483 .00, "safety valve" under separate tariff
sub-heading 8481.80 and "filter" under separate tariff sub-heading
8421.00. Apart from the above three items, assessee supplied to its buyers +
bought-out items, namely, V. belt, motor, pulley, belt guard, gauge, gauge
C board, angle valve, M.S. male flange, C.A.F. Gasket, set of tools, bolts
and nuts, etc.
4. On 4.9.98, show cause notice was given to Mis. FIL in which it
was alleged by the Department that the assessee had evaded payment of
D duty on the full value of the compressors, manufactured and cleared by
them, by separately invoicing clearance of bought-out items and
manufactured items. At this stage, it may be ncticed that the factory of
the assessee is in Faridabad where the items, manufactured and cleared,
consisted of compressor, fly wheel, safety valve and filter ("manufactured
E items", for short) whereas from their trading office in New Delhi, the
bought-out items consisted ofV. belt, pulley, belt guard, angle valves and
· other items referred to in para 3 of the show cause notice ("bought-out
items", for short). According to the show cause notice, assessee had
knoWingly cleared manufactured items and bought-out items separately;
that the value of the bought-out items and manufactured items like fly
F wheel, safety valve and filter were includible in the assessable value of
the compressor as without the said items the compressor was non-
functional; that, Mis. FIL had deliberately undervalued the compressor
and overvalued the accessories/parts which were supplied separately to
the buyers; that, there was a difference between the cost price and the
G declared assessable value for compressor and in the circumstances the
assessee became liable to pay differential duty amounting to
Rs. 4,46,19,392.65 on the accessories which stood worked out on the
basis of includibility of the value of bought-out items+ duty on the parts
of accessories, manufactured and cleared by the assessee, at lower rate
H of duty during the period August 1993 to March 1998. According to the
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI v. 177
MIS. FRICK INDIA LTD. [KAPADIA,J.]

y' Department, the said accessories were in effect parts of the compressor A
as the compressor was non-functional without the said items.
5. In reply to the show cause notice, assessee pleaded that when
the manufactured items, namely, fly wheel, safety valve and filter were
supplied along with the compressors, the said items were classifiable under B
their own respective Headings, namely, 84.83 (fly wheel), 84.81 (safety
wheel) and 84.21 (filter). According to the assessee, the said three items
were not classifiable as "compressor" under tariff Heading 84.14. In this
-"t connection, reliance was placed by the assessee on Note 2 to Section
XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which, inter alia, states that
c
parts of machines are to be classified under their respective headings.
6. By order dated 31.12.99, the Commissioner held that fly wheel,
safety valve and filter were essential parts in the compressors; that, similarly
bought-out items, namely, motor pulley, V. belt, belt guard, angle valve
etc. were also to be treated as parts, as the compressor was non-functional D
without such bought-out items; that the compressors supplied at sites by
the assessee were basically compressors in SKD condition; in that
connection reliance was placed on General Interpretative Rule 2(a), Part-
V Section XVI of HSN, Part-III Section XVI of the Interpretative Notes
2(a) and 3(b) as also Note 3 to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; that E
from the cost statements filed by the assessee, the difference between the
manufacturing cost and the declared assessable value for compressors of
different sizes was clear. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the
r show cause notice stood confirmed.
~-

F
7. Aggrieved by the decision dated 31.12. 99 given by the
Commissioner, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to CEGAT which
took the view that the compressor, cleared by the assessee, stood cleared
as a "stand-alone" item and that it was not removed in an unassembled
or disassembled condition and, therefore, there was no question of G
applying General Interpretative Rule 2(a), Part-V Section XVI of HSN;
that, similarly Part-III of Section XVI oflnterpretative Notes of HSN
was not applicable as the compressor was cleared as a "stand-alone" item.
According to the Tribunal, since parts of the compressor, namely, fly
wheel, safety valve and filter as also bought-out items were classifiable I-I
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A wider separate headings, namely, 84.83, 8481and84.21, the Department ~
had erred in classifying them as "compressors". According to CEGAT,
the said items were classifiable wider specific headings by virtue ofNote
2(a) to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and, therefore,
the said three items could not have been classified as "compressor".
B However, on the question as to whether the assessee had transferred the
value oft.lie compressor to the value of the parts, the matter was remitted
to the Commissioner. The Department had alleged in the show cause
notice that the assessee had undervalued the compressors and had +
overvalued the aceessories which were supplied either in the same packing
C or separately to the buyers. This question has been remitted to the
Commissioner. Aggrieved by the decision delivered by the Tribwial dated
18.9.01, the Department has come to this Court by way of the present
civil appeals.
D 8. We quote hereinbelow Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation
of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which reads as
below: ~

"2 (a) Any reference in a heading to goods shall be taken to include
a reference to those goods incomplete or Wlfinished, provided that,
E the incomplete or unfinished goods have the essential character of
the complete or finished goods. It shall also be taken to include a
reference to those goods complete or finished (or falling to be
classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), removed
wiassembled or disassembled."
F
9. We also quote hereinbelow Section Note 2 to Section XVI of
the Central Excise Tariff which reads as below:
"2. Subje~tto Note 1 to this Section, Note I to Chapter 84 and
to Note 1 to Chapter 85, parts of machines (not being parts of
G the articles of heading 84.84, 85.44, 85.45, 85.46 or 85.47) are
to be classified according to the following rules:
(a) Parts which are goods included in any of the headings of
Chapter 84 or Chapt~r 85 (other than heading Nos. 84.09,
84.31, 84.48, 84.66, 84.73, 84.85, 85.03, 85.22, 85.29,
H
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI v. 179
M/S.FRICKINDIALTD. [KAPADIA,J.]
85.38 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their A
Y'· respective headings;
(b) Other parts, if suitable for use solely or principally with a
particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of
the same heading (including a machine of heading No. 84.79
or heading No.85.43) are to be classified with the machines B
of that kind or in heading 84.09, 84.31, 84.48, 84.66, 8<'1,.73,
85.03, 85.22, 85.29 or 85.38 as appropriate. However, parts
which are equally suitable for use principally with the goods
of heading Nos. 85.17 and 85.25 to 85.28 are to be classified
in heading No. 85.17; c
(c) All other parts are to be classified in heading 84.09, 84.31,
84.48, 84.66, 84.73, 85.03, 85.22, 85.29 or 85.38 as
appropriate or, failing that, in heading No. 84.85 or 85.48."
10. We also quote hereinbelow Section Note 2 to Section XVI of D
the HSN which reads as below:
"2. Subject to Note 1 to this Section, Note 1 to Chapter 84 and
Note 1 to Chapter 85;parts of machines (not being parts of the
articles of heading 84.84, 85.44, 85.45, 85.46 or 85.47) are to
E
be classified according to the following rules:
(a) Parts which are goods included in any of the headings of
Chapter 84 or 85 (other than headings 84.09, 84.31, 84.48,
¥ 84.66, 84.73, 84.85, 85.03, 85.22, 85.29, 85.38 and 85.48)
>-
are in all cases to be cla..;;sified in their respective headings; F
(b) Other parts, if suitable for use solely or principally with a
particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of
the san1e heading (including a machine of heading 84.79 or
85.43) are to be classified with the machines of that kind or
in heading 84.09, 84.31, 84.48, 84.66, 84. 73, 85.03, 85.22, G
85.29 or 85.38 as appropriate. However, parts which are
equally suitable for use principally with the goods of headings
85.17 and 85.25 to 85.28 are to be classified in heading 85.17;
(c) All other parts are to be classified in heading 84.09, 84.31,
H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A 84.48, 84.66, 84.73, 85.03, 85.22, 85.29 or 85.38 as
appropriate or, failing that, in heading 84.85 or 85.48."
11. We quote hereinbelow Explanatory Note dealing with Parts of
a Machine in HSN which reads as below:
B "PARTS
In general, parts which are suitable for use solely or principally
with particular machines or apparatus (including those of heading
84.79 or heading 85.43), or with a group of machines of apparatus
falling in the same heading, are classified in the same heading as
c those machines or apparatus subject, of course, to the exclusions
mentioned in Part (I) above. Separate headings are, however,
provided for:
(A) Parts of the engines of heading 84.07 or 84.08 (heading
D 84.09).
(B) Parts of the machinery of headings 84.25 to 84.30 (heading
84.31 ).
(C) Parts of the textile machines of headings 84.44 to 84.47
(heading 84.48)
E
(D) Parts of the machine-tools of headings 84.56 to 84.65 (heading
84.66).
(E) Parts of the office machines of headings 84.69 to 84.72
(heading 84.73).
F
(F) Parts of the machines of heading 85.01 or 85.02 (heading
85.03).
(G) Parts of appararns of headings 85.19 to 85.21 (heading 85.22).
(H) Parts of apparatus of headings 85.25 to 85.28 (heading 85.29).
G
(IJ) Parts of apparatus of heading 85.35, 85.36 or 85.37 (heading
85.38).
The above rules do not apply to parts which in themselves
constitute an article covered by a heading of this Section (other
H
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI v. 181
MIS. FRICK INDIA LTD. [KAPADIA, J.]
than headings 84.85 and 85.48); these are in all cases classified A
y in their own appropriate heading even if specially designed to work
as part of a specific machine. This applies in particular to:
(1) Pumps and compressors (headings 84.13 and 84.14)
(2) Filtering machinery and apparatus of heading 84 .21. B
(3) Lifting and handling machinery (heading 84.25, 84.26 or
84.28).
(4) Taps, cocks, valves, etc. (heading 84.81).
(5) Ball or roller bearings, and polished steel balls of a tolerance c
not exceeding 1% or 0.05 mm, whichever is less (heading
84.82).
(6) Transmission shafts, cranks, bearing housings, plain shaft
bearings, gears and gearing (including friction gears and gear-
boxes and other speed changers), flywheels, pulleys and pulley D
blocks, clutches and shaft couplings (heading 84.83).
(7) Gaskets and similar joints of heading 84.84/'
12. We quote hereinbelow Part V Section XVI of HSN which reads
as below: E
"(V) UNASSEMBLED MACHINES
(See General Interpretative Rule 2(a))
For convenience of transport many machines and apparatus are F
transported in an unassembled state. Although in effect the goods
are then a collection of parts, they are classified as being the
machine in question and not in any separate heading for part. The
same applies to art incomplete machine having the features of the
complete machine (see part IV), presented unassembled (see also G
in this connection the General Explanatory Notes to Chapters 84
and 85). However, unassembled components in excess of the
number required for a complete machine or for an incomplete
machine having the characteristics of a complete machine, are
classified in their own appropriate heading."
H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A 13. We quote hereinbelow Part III Section XVI of the Interpretative
Notes of HSN which reads as below: ~

"(III) ACCESSORY APARATUS
(See General interpretative Rules 2(a) and 3(b) and Section
B Notes 3 and 4)
Accessory instruments and apparatus (e.g., manometers,
thermometers, level gauges or other measuring. or checking
instruments, output counters, clockwork switches, control panels,
c automatic regulators) presented with the machine or apparatus with
which they normally belong are classified with that machine or
apparatus, if they are designed to measure, check,· control or
regulate one specific machine or apparatus (which may be a
combination of machines (see Part VI) or a functional unit (see part
VII)). However, accessory instruments and apparatus designed to
D
measure, check, control or regulate several machines (whether or
not of the same type) fall in their own appropriate heading."
) ._
14. Chargeability from excise duty is on the manufacture of excisable
goods. The assessee has to pay duty on the manufacture of such goods.
E With chargeability, question of quantification ofduty comes in. Classification
decides the applicable rate. It is followed by valuation i.e. value on which
the rate is to be applied. The concept of "classification" is, therefore,
different from the concept of"valuation". In the present matter there is
confusion in application of the aforestated two concepts by the
F Commissioner. In our view, the thrust of the show cause notice is towards
undervaluation and not classification. This is made clear even in the order
of the Commissioner vide para 53 which reads as under:·
"53. On consideration of the arguments of both sides and the facts
on record I find that show cause notice dated 1.10.86 proposed
G
classification of flywheel, safety valve and filter under SH 8414.91
of CET 1985. The Show Cause Notice dated 10.11,86, which
superceded the above SCN also proposed the same classification.
The present show cause notice also does not propose any fresh
classification. Here the issue involved is different. The issue is not
H
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI v. 183
M/S.FRICKINDIALTD. [KAPADIA,J.]
whether the items like fly wheel, pulley and safety valve are A
y classifiable under SH 8414.10 or 8414.19 or in the specific sub
heading where these items have been specifically mentioned. The
issue here is whether Mis FIL have made correct assessment of
duty and have paid appropriate duty leviable thereon on the
compressors cleared by them during the period relevant to this B
Show Cause. The case of the Department is that since these items
are essential parts of the compressors and have been supplied
alongwith compressors in SKD condition, the value ofsuch parts
is includible in the assessable value of compressors. I have
already come to the cpnclusion that the above items are essential c
parts of the compressors as discussed in paragraphs 42 to 48
supra. Thus the point raised by the notice becomes redundant."
(emphasis supplied by us)
15. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the General Interpretative D
Rule 2(a) has no application to the present case for two reasons. Firstly,
the compressor manufactured by the assessee was removed as a "stand-
alone" item. It was not cleared in an unassembled or disassembled
condition. Secondly, section and chapter notes in Central Excise Tariff
Act, 1985 and the Interpretative Rules do not provide guidelines for E
valuation of excisable goods as they decide classification of a product
under different headings/sub-headings of the tariff. Lastly, under Note 2(a)
to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as well as Note
2(a) to Section XVI of HSN read with Explanatory Note referable to
r
~-
Parts of a Machine in HSN clarifies that payment of duty at the appropriate F
rates, relevant to the respective headings alone, shall apply. In the present
case, as stated above a complete compressor stood cleared under tariff
Heading 84.14. Duty has been paid thereof. Similarly, safety valves were
cleared by the assessee on payment of duty under tariffHeading 84.81.
Lastly, filters were also cleared by payment of duty under tariff Heading
G
84.21. In the circumstances, on the question of classification the Tribunal
was right in holding that parts/accessories could not have been classified
as "compressors" under tariff Heading 84.14.
16. However, we find merit in these civil appeals filed by the
Department on the question of valuation. As stated above, the concept H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A of "classification" is different from the concept of"valuation". In the.
present matter, along with the "stand-alone" compressor, the assessee has ~
supplied fly wheel, safety valve and filter to its buyers. They have also
supplied bought-out items like V. belt, motor, pulley, belt guard, gauge,
gauge board, angle valve, M.S. male flange, C.A.F. Gasket, set of tools,
B bolts arid nuts, etc. to their buyers, as a package. Therefore, on the
question of valuation, the Commissioner should have examined the pricing
aspect of the entire package supplied by the assessee to its buyers. For
example, when a ceiling fan is sold to the buyer, apart from the parts of
the ceiling fan, there may be a remote which is a part of the package ~

c supplied to the buyer. That remote is fan-specific in matter of valuation
since the remote is an additional feature provided with the ceiling fan its
value has also to be taken into account. This is because the remote which
operates the fan may be an accessory but still it makes value addition
and, therefore, its value is liable to be included in the assessable value of
D the ceiling fan. These aspects have not been considered by the
Commissioner, therefore, in addition to the question remitted by CEGAT
to the Commissioner we also direct the Commissioner to de nova
..l
consider the question of valuation. In this connection, the Commissioner
will call for the cost statements and shall also ascertain the manner in which
the assessee has priced its goods. The Commissioner may also consider
E
invocation of Section 14A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which deals
with "special audits in certain cases". In our view, in the present matter
"costing" as a concept will play an important role and, therefore, ifthe
Commissioner so deems fit he can order special audits (:ll1d call for the
report of the cost accountant to assist him (Commissioner) to arrive at l
F the correct value of the entire package cleared by the assessee from its .J..

factory gate.
17. Accordingly, the civil appeals filed by the Department are partly
allowed with no order as to costs.
G
S.K.S. Appeals Partly allowed.
~