2013 (6) TMI 557 - AT - Central Excise

Stay - valuation - motor vehiles - payment of duty of chassis - body builders fabricate/build the body of the vehicle on the supplied Chassis and clear/transfer the same to the Applicants RSO on payment of central excise duty. - demand of differential value between the RSO (Regional Sales Office) Price and the assessable value on which the duty was paid by the body builders - Held that - the Applicant have transferred the chassis to the body builders under a peculiar arrangement, that is, against a trust receipt and the said Chassis is being held by the body builders as trustee. Further, under the terms and conditions of the said arrangement against the heading, Taxes , it is mentioned that the excise duty paid by the Applicant would be available as CENVAT credit to the body builders; the body builders are required to pay duty on the completely built-up vehicle only after the set-off of CENVAT credit on chassis and the unutilized CENVAT credit would belong to M/s. Tata Motors, the Applicant. The said condition apparently raises a doubt and leads to an inference that the nature of dealings between the Applicant and the job worker are not on principal-to-principal basis. - prima facie case is against the assessee - directed to make predeposit of 25% - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of fully manufactured vehicles sold from RSO, applicability of job work valuation principles, nature of dealings between Applicant and body builders, suppression of facts, limitation period, waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.

Valuation of Fully Manufactured Vehicles Sold from RSO:
The case involves the valuation of 29,072 fully manufactured vehicles sold by the Applicant from the Regional Sales Office (RSO) during a specific period. The Applicant manufactures motor vehicles and chassis, selling them Ex-Factory and from RSO after paying central excise duty. The dispute arises from the differential value between the RSO price and the assessable value on which duty was paid by body builders. The adjudicating authority confirmed duty against this differential value, citing suppression of facts and invoking the extended period of limitation.

Applicability of Job Work Valuation Principles:
The Applicant argues that the duty paid on chassis is available as CENVAT credit to body builders who manufacture the vehicles. They contend that the arrangement between the Applicant and body builders is that of a principal manufacturer and job worker. Referring to relevant judgments and circulars, the Applicant asserts that the assessable value of the vehicles should be determined based on specific principles. They claim that the duty demand against them is incorrect as the body builders are the manufacturers of the vehicles.

Nature of Dealings Between Applicant and Body Builders:
The Respondent alleges that the Applicant used a mechanism to undervalue goods and gain undue benefits. They argue that the transaction between the Applicant and body builders is not on a principal-to-principal basis, as indicated by specific terms in the agreement. The Respondent contends that the excess CENVAT credit remains with the Applicant, suggesting a non-commercial nature of the dealings. They refer to judgments supporting their stance and assert that duty should be paid based on the transaction value between the Applicant and customers.

Suppression of Facts and Limitation Period:
The Applicant claims that there was no suppression of facts as the arrangement with body builders was communicated to the Department. They argue that the demand is barred by limitation. However, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant's right over unutilized CENVAT credit accumulated by body builders was not clearly addressed in the communication to the Department. This lack of clarity impacts the limitation aspect of the case.

Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Duty and Penalty:
After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal directs the Applicant to deposit 25% of the confirmed duty within six weeks, with the balance amount of duty and penalty waived upon this deposit. The decision aims to balance the interests of revenue and the Applicant, with no financial hardship being pleaded. The recovery of the remaining amount is stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal principles, and the final decision regarding the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.