Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (6) TMI 557

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. - E/120/2010 - S-426/KOL/2011 - Dated:- 21-12-2011 - Sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntral excise duty paid on the same plus the consideration paid to them for the said body building activity. The said Vehicles are ultimately sold from the RSO by the Applicant to their customers at a price higher than the value at which the duty was paid by the body builders. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty against the differential value between the RSO Price and the assessable value on which the duty was paid by the body builders invoking the extended period of limitation and imposed equivalent penalty observing suppression of facts. 2. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that there is no dispute about the correctness of the duty paid on the Chassis manufactured by the Applicant and cleared on stock-transfer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r building the body of the vehicle on job-work basis was informed to the Department through their letter dated 17-3-2003 and hence, there is no suppression of facts and accordingly, the demand is barred by limitation. 3. Learned Special Consultant, on the other hand, submitted that the entire mechanism has been used by the Applicant to under-value the goods and derive undue benefits out of it. He has submitted that the Chassis manufactured by the Applicant were neither sold nor transferred in the ordinary course of business, as is normally done. These are transferred to the body-builder under a trust receipt. Further, he has drawn our attention to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the Applicant and the body bu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... astructures Ltd. v. C.S.T., Kolkata reported 2011 (263) E.L.T. 195 (Cal.) - 2011 (21) S.T.R. 11 (Cal.) and the judgment of the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of C.C.E., Guntur v. Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee reported in 2011 (22) S.T.R. 135 (AP) on the principles of law laid down by the Hon ble High Courts in granting stay. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. The principle governing valuation of good manufactured on job work basis is well-settled by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints v. U.O.I. Others reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) and Pawan Biscuits Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.). The said principle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, 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. The learned Counsel during the course of arguments explained that the CENVAT credit availed by the body builders had never been paid back to the Applicant. But that issue is a question of fact, and assuming that even if it was not paid back to the Applicant, the Applicant continued to have a right over the accumulated credit lying in the books of the body builders. On the aspect of limitation, we find that in the letter dated 17-3-2003 written by the Applicant to the Department, it is silent on the right of the Applicant over the unutilized CENV .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates