2017 (11) TMI 1325 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - appellant is engaged in manufacturing Tippers and Truck body and mounted the tippers and truck body on the chassis supplied by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. - CENVAT credit availed on duty paid chassis - case of Revenue is that valuation will have to be done under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that - an identical issue has came up before the Tribunal as M/s. Audi Automobiles vs. CCE, Indore 2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , where it was held that the said firms had cleared the goods in relation to the body fabricating and mounting on the chassis which were supplied to the said firms free of cost by the manufacturer of chassis. Being so, the activity for the purpose of valuation would squarely fall under Rule 10A and not under Rule 6 - duty upheld - penalty set aside - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Valuation under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for availing cenvat credit on duty paid chassis supplied by another company.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of law regarding job work and on behalf of the principal manufacturer.
3. Imposition of penalty based on the interpretation of the law.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 031-14-15 dated 20.02.2015 concerning the valuation of excisable goods under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants manufactured Tippers and Truck body by mounting them on chassis supplied by another company. The dispute revolved around availing cenvat credit on the duty paid chassis supplied by the company. The department contended that valuation should be done under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and referred to a similar case, M/s. Audi Automobiles vs. CCE, Indore, emphasizing the need for documentation to support claims of being sub-contractors. The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty and interest under Rule 10A for the activity of fabricating and mounting bodies on the chassis supplied by the manufacturer.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the work entrusted to the firms involved in fabricating and mounting bodies on the chassis. It was crucial to establish whether the work constituted job work within the meaning of Rule 10A or was done on behalf of the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal observed that the firms had cleared goods related to body fabrication and mounting on the chassis provided free of cost by the chassis manufacturer. Consequently, the activity fell under Rule 10A for valuation purposes. The Tribunal ruled that there was no illegality in the demand of duty and interest from the appellants. However, regarding the penalty, the Tribunal considered the interpretation of the law and the precedent set by the Apex Court in a specific case. As the impugned order did not address this aspect, the Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty. Therefore, the appeals partly succeeded, with the penalty being canceled, but the duty demand and interest thereon were upheld.

3. Ultimately, following a previous order, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by canceling the penalty and sustaining the duty demand. The appeal was partially allowed, with the penalty being revoked while the duty demand and interest were maintained. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal provisions and precedents, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the issues raised in the appeal.