JUDGMENT : S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. The petitioners manufacture electronic truck weighing systems and their parts and similar equipment for the railways. They were informed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, on 28-3-1989 that the value of bought out items would have to be included in the assessable value of weighbridges of the kind that were manufactured by them, in the light of the judgment of this Court in Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 566 . Upon the petitioners' applying for elucidation, show cause notices were issued to them on 6-6-1989 and 14-6-1989 upon the same basis. The show cause notices are challenged in this writ petition. 2. By an interim order of 10-8-1989 the proceedings upon the show cause notices were allowed to go on, but on the condition that no recoveries would be made. We are informed that, pending the decision of the writ petition, the show cause notices have been confirmed. 3. The decision in the case of Narne Tulaman Manufacturers was considered by this Court in the case of Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 622 , and it was explained that the only argument on behalf of Narne Tulaman Manufacturers had been that it was liable to excise duty in respect of the indicating system that it manufactured and not the whole weighbridge. The contention that weighbridges were not goods within the meaning of the statute was not raised and no evidence in that behalf was brought on record. The Narne Tulaman Manufactures judgment did not lay down that weighbridges were excisable goods. 4. Having regard to the judgment in the case of Mittal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., it is not necessary for us to go into this writ petition. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file appeals against the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise confirming the show cause notices aforementioned. The appeals shall be decided in the light of the judgment in the case of Mittal Engineering Works and the other judgments cited therein. If the petitioners file the appeals within 8 weeks from today, the bar of limitation shall not be raised and the appeals shall be decided on merits. The appeals shall be decided in the light of the judgment in the case of Mittal Engineering Works and the other judgments cited therein. If the petitioners file the appeals within 8 weeks from today, the bar of limitation shall not be raised and the appeals shall be decided on merits. Having regard to the facts of this case, we direct that the pre-deposit requirement for the hearing of the appeals shall not be insisted upon. 5. We may add that in giving these directions we have the concurrence of learned Counsel for the respondents. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.