2018 (10) TMI 823 - AT - Central Excise

Method of Valuation - fabrication of bodies of motor vehicles falling under Chapter heading 8704, for original equipment manufacturers - appellant paid duty on the basis of the cost construction - Revenue was of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant is in the nature of job work and hence valuation is required to be determined in line with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that - Tribunal in various cases has held that the valuation is required to be determined in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and accordingly differential duty demand has become payable - reliance placed in the case of M/S COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, JABALPUR 2018 (10) TMI 456 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . The adjudicating authority is directed to requantify and restrict the demand to the normal time limit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Order-in-Appeal No. 21/18 dated 30.01.2018 for the period February, 2012 to August, 2014.
2. Challenge to Order-in-Original No. 41/2017-18 dated 15.02.2018 for the period January, 2016 to June, 2017.
3. Dispute over the valuation adopted by the appellant for payment of duty on manufactured motor vehicles.
4. Applicability of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for determining duty payment.
5. Entitlement to cum duty price benefit.
6. Time limit for demand restriction based on Section 11A.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in fabricating motor vehicle bodies, challenged two orders concerning the valuation for duty payment on vehicles manufactured for Tata Motors Limited (TML). The Revenue argued the activity was job work, requiring valuation per Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, contrary to the appellant's cost construction basis following a Supreme Court decision.

2. The appellant sought benefits based on previous Tribunal decisions, including entitlement to cum duty price and demand restriction to the normal time limit under Section 11A. The Revenue defended the impugned order, emphasizing the settled necessity to determine valuation under Rule 10A, resulting in a differential duty demand.

3. Citing precedents, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to recompute the duty demand, following directions from previous final orders. The decision highlighted the need to reconsider the issue without imposing penalties, emphasizing the non-includability of taxes in the assessable value for duty calculation.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to requantify and restrict the demand to the normal time limit, disposing of the appeals through remand. The judgment underscored adherence to previous directions and emphasized the importance of proper valuation determination in line with established rules and precedents.