2019 (2) TMI 1611 - AT - Central Excise

Method of valuation - section 4 or section 4A of CEA - Rubber Tubes - It is the case of the Department that these tubes should be considered as parts of the automobiles as per notification No. 11/2006-CE(NT), dated 29.05.2006 as amended which makes the goods liable to duty under Section 4A - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer res integra and it was decided by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. TYRE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE 2018 (2) TMI 611 - CESTAT NEW DELHI in which it was held that the tyres and tubes are not only used for automobiles but also used for animal drawn vehicles, aircrafts and various other machineries and therefore they cannot be considered as parts and components of automobiles. Accordingly, the demand of differential duty falling under section 4A is not sustainable. The demand of differential duty on this ground is not sustainable - penalty u/r 25 of CER also needs to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Addition of an additional ground in the appeal memorandum.
2. Valuation of rubber tubes for central excise duty under Section 4A.
3. Classification of rubber tubes as parts of automobiles.
4. Applicability of notification No. 11/2006-CE(NT) for charging duty.
5. Interpretation of relevant notifications and abatements.
6. Justifiability of differential duty demand and penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. Addition of an additional ground in the appeal memorandum:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking permission to add an additional ground related to the valuation of rubber tubes for central excise duty. The Tribunal allowed the application, considering it a valid ground for consideration in the appeal.

2. Valuation of rubber tubes for central excise duty under Section 4A:
The central issue revolved around the valuation of rubber tubes manufactured by the appellant for central excise duty. Section 4A of the Central Excise Act mandates duty payment based on the printed retail sales price of commodities subject to abatement. The appellant contended that the tubes should be valued under Section 4, not Section 4A.

3. Classification of rubber tubes as parts of automobiles:
The Department argued that the rubber tubes should be considered parts of automobiles as per a specific notification, making them liable for duty under Section 4A. The appellant disputed this classification, asserting that the tubes were articles of rubber and not covered by the notification.

4. Applicability of notification No. 11/2006-CE(NT) for charging duty:
The crux of the matter was whether the rubber tubes manufactured by the appellant fell under the ambit of notification No. 11/2006-CE(NT), which prescribed central excise duty under Section 4A based on the retail sales price. The appellant contested this applicability.

5. Interpretation of relevant notifications and abatements:
The Tribunal examined various notifications and abatements related to the valuation of automobile parts, including the changes in abatement percentages over time. The interpretation of these notifications played a crucial role in determining the correct valuation method for the rubber tubes.

6. Justifiability of differential duty demand and penalty imposition:
After thorough consideration and referencing past decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for differential duty and penalty imposition on the appellant was not sustainable. Relying on precedent cases, the Tribunal set aside the demand and penalty, allowing the appeal and granting relief to the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision based on precedent and interpretation of the law.

← Previous Next →