2014 (12) TMI 535 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty - Valuation of footrest cleared as part of scooter - Held that - When the Tribunal directed the Assistant Commissioner to verify the number of scooters cleared and the number of footrests cleared and to add the value of footrests to the value of the scooters, the implication is that the number of footrests whose value has to be taken into account will be those required to be fitted in the scooter. If one footrest is required to be fitted in the one scooter, then the number of the scooter will be equal to the number of footrest. If the assessee has cleared any footrest in excess to the scooter, the same will be in nature of spares. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the lower appellate authority - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Tribunal's order regarding duty liability on footrests cleared along with scooters.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II. The lower appellate authority had set aside the differential duty demand after interpreting the Tribunal's order regarding the duty liability on footrests cleared as part of scooters.

2. The Revenue contended that the footrests cleared, even if in excess of the number of scooters cleared, should be added to the assessable value of the scooters. The Addl. Commissioner (AR) representing the Revenue reiterated the grounds mentioned in the appeal memorandum.

3. The respondent, M/s Maharashtra Scooter Ltd., argued in their written submissions that the lower appellate authority's interpretation of the Tribunal's order was correct in law. They asserted that the value of footrests should only be added if they were required to be fitted in the scooters.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both parties and concluded that the number of footrests to be considered for duty liability would be those required to be fitted in the scooters. Any excess footrests cleared would be considered as spares. Therefore, the Tribunal found no fault in the lower appellate authority's interpretation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for lacking merit. The respondent was deemed eligible for any consequential relief as per the law.

5. Additionally, the Cross-objection was also disposed of by the Tribunal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by P R Chandrasekharan.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the interpretation of the Tribunal's order regarding the duty liability on footrests cleared along with scooters, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's final decision.