2012 (5) TMI 475 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of Duty, Interest and Penalty on the basis of the value determined in terms of the provisions of Rule 10A - the appellant company is engaged in building of bus bodies - the Department was of the view that assessee were building bus bodies on job work basis Held that - This matter is covered against the appellants by the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles vs.C.C.E., Indore 2009 (5) TMI 426 (Tri) Wherein it is decided that body fabricating and mounting on the chassis which were supplied to the said firms by the manufacturer of chassis is the activity for the purpose of valuation squarely fall under Rule 10A and not under Rule 6 - penalty imposed on the appellant company is not justified as the matter relates to interpretation of valuation Rules and it cannot be said that there was intention on the part of the appellant to evade duty - the duty demand along with interest is upheld and demand of penalty is set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over duty payment basis for building bus bodies on chassis received from Tata Motors Ltd.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 leading to dismissal of appeals.

Issue 1: Dispute over duty payment basis for building bus bodies on chassis received from Tata Motors Ltd.:
The appellant company was engaged in building bus bodies on chassis received from Tata Motors Ltd. They paid duty based on the cost of the chassis plus body building charges. However, the Department contended that duty should be paid based on the value determined under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, considering the price at which the buses were sold by Tata Motors Ltd. The jurisdictional Joint Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs.29,32,297/- along with penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellants to deposit the duty amount under Section 35F, but the appeals were dismissed due to non-compliance.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules:
The appellant's counsel argued against the imposition of penalties, stating that the duty demand had been paid in installments. The counsel acknowledged that the matter was against the appellants based on a Tribunal judgment regarding the duty demand. However, it was argued that there was no intention to evade duty, and penalties should not be imposed. The Departmental Representative contended that penalties were justified due to incorrect discharge of duty liability during the disputed period.

Issue 3: Non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 leading to dismissal of appeals:
The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with Section 35F without considering the appellants' plea of financial hardship. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and the payment of the differential duty demand and interest, decided to uphold the duty demand along with interest. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant company and its director, as there was no intention to evade duty and the issue related to the interpretation of valuation rules.

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with procedural requirements, the interpretation of valuation rules, and the justification for imposing penalties in excise duty disputes. The Tribunal's decision provides clarity on duty payment basis for building bus bodies and emphasizes the need for proper adherence to statutory provisions to avoid penalties.