9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 - 1397/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 29-8-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri Devender Singh, Jt. CDR with Sanjay Jain, AR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President]. The appellant M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. filed this application seeking waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 14,84,88,928/- with interest and equal amount of penalty imposed by the impugned order. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of automobiles. They sell automobile produced by them to the dealers under dealership agreement on ex-factory price. Under the agreement the dealer is entitled to sell automobil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis. That as per agreement the dealer can sell the vehicle purchased by him to the ultimate customer at any price not exceeding the recommended maximum price. It is contended that the dealer under the agreement is under obligation to provide free pre-delivery inspection and three free services to the ultimate customer at his own expense and the price of the aforesaid free services is included in the contract price at which vehicle is sold to the dealer. Thus it is contended that the appellant has rightly paid the excise duty on the transaction value in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is contended that the jurisdictional Commissioner(Adjudication) has committed an error in including the cost of free pre-delivery inspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices and after sale services by the dealer from the buyer of the cars are to be included in the assessable value of the car in the light of the definition of transaction value given in Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ld. AR submitted that the judgments in Philips India Ltd., Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. and Yamaha Motors India Pvt. Ltd. were considered by the Larger Bench while deciding the reference and those judgments have been distinguished. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is undisputed that the appellant during the period in question cleared the cars manufactured in their factory to respective dealers on principal to principal basis and paid excise duty as per price cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahindra Ltd. (supra) by observing thus : 37. The Apex Court in Philips India Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 540 (S.C.) was dealing with the period from 1983 to 1986. The issue related to advertisement expenses and expenses on after sale services. Therein the finding of the Tribunal was that there was nothing on record to show that the expenses incurred by the dealers on those counts were reimbursed by the assessee. In that background, the decision was delivered, apart from the fact that it related to the period prior to introduction of concept of transaction value. 39. In Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 606 (Tribunal) the Tribunal held that there was no dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
