2018 (10) TMI 456 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - job-work - fabrication of body on the chassis supplied by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. - whether the duty liability arises in respect of the job works undertaken by the appellant by fabrication of body on the chassis supplied by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. free of cost? - Held that - The issue decided in the case of Commercial Engineers and Body Builders Pvt. Limited Versus C.C.E., Bhopal 2016 (11) TMI 1585 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where the matter is remanded back for consideration afresh - appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty liability on job works undertaken by the appellant
- Valuation of motor vehicles manufactured by the appellant

Analysis:
1. Duty Liability on Job Works:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order dated 22.11.2017, questioning the duty liability arising from the fabrication of bodies on chassis supplied by Tata Motors Ltd. free of cost. The adjudicating authority held the appellant accountable for duty payment on the activity of body building and imposed a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules for contraventions. The appellant, engaged in fabricating motor vehicles on chassis received from Tata Motors, cleared the vehicles after paying duty using Cenvat credit. The dispute centered on the valuation of the vehicles manufactured by the appellant. While the unit paid duty based on Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules, the department contended that valuation should follow Rule 10(A) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Consequently, differential duty was demanded through the impugned orders, leading to the filing of the present appeals.

2. Valuation of Motor Vehicles:
During the disputed period, the appellant paid Central Excise duty based on Rule 6, but the department insisted on Rule 10(A) for valuation. The Tribunal, in previous orders, addressed similar issues and directed a reconsideration without imposing penalties. Referring to Final Orders from 2016 and 2017, the Tribunal highlighted that the matter had been remanded to the adjudicating authority for reassessment. The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, remanded the current matter back to the adjudicating authority. The authority was instructed to compute duty demand in line with the Tribunal's directions from the past orders. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, maintaining consistency with the Tribunal's previous decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on duty liability concerning job works and the valuation of motor vehicles manufactured by the appellant. The decision emphasized adherence to previous orders, remanding the matter for reassessment without imposing penalties, and providing clear directions for computing duty demands. The Tribunal's approach aimed at ensuring consistency and fairness in addressing the issues raised by the appellant, ultimately upholding the principles of excise law and procedural fairness.