9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were set aside. Following AUDI AUTOMOBILES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - once it was sought to be contended that Rule 10A will have no application in the facts of the case, it was for the assesses to produce relevant documents like the invoice and agreement which would support the case put forth by the assesses - it was necessary for the assesses to disclose the nature of the understanding between the manufacturer of chassis and the said firms, and in case, such understanding was in the form of writing, to place on record the document in that respect. It was apparent that the 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 - the activity for the purpose of valuation would squarely fall under Rule 10A and not under Rule 6 - Decided against assesses. - E/527/2008, 996/2010, 286/2011 and 981/2012-Mum - A/1038-1041/2012-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 30-11-2012 - Shri S.S. Kang and Sahab Singh, JJ. Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate with Narendra Dave, C.A., for the Appellant. Shri K.L. Goyal, Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. The department therefore felt that the appellants have undervalued the goods to that extent and since the goods were sold from depot of Tata Motors and others the appellants were required to pay duty at depot price of Tata Motors and others as the place of removal in this case is depot of Tata Motors and others. The appellants have undervalued the goods to the extent that fully built up vehicles were sold at an higher price from the place of removal other than the factory gate of the appellants. Accordingly, different show cause notices were issued to the appellants for different period demanding duty as per Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules at the price at which the goods was sold from the depot of the Tata Motors or other suppliers. These show cause notices were contested by the appellants and were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur vide the impugned orders against which the appellants have filed these four appeals. 4. Ld. Sr. Advocate Shri V. Sridharan appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the transaction between the appellants and Tata Motors are on principal to principal basis and the appellants are not agents of Tata M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 2098 (Mad.) and 5. Steel City Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 147 (Pat.). 5. The ld. Sr. Advocate further submitted that on an identical situation with regard to body builders the Hon ble Patna High Court in the case of Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Ltd. Others v. UOI Others - 1988 (35) E.L.T. 617 (Pat.) held that body builders who built body on the chassis supplied by Tata Engineering Locomotive Company are independent manufacturers and it cannot be held that they manufacture motor vehicle on behalf of TELCO and the said decision of the Patna High Court was confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court [1997 (94) E.L.T. A128 (S.C.)]. He further contended that Rule 10A consciously and deliberately employs the expression on behalf of . This expression has been authoritatively interpreted by Supreme Court long time ago. Identical interpretation has been placed on this expression uniformly by many High Courts and Tribunal. Therefore, the presumption is that the Rule making authority has used the phrase on behalf of in that sense, namely as applicable to agents and not principal to principal transactions. He further referred to the decision of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. Sr. Advocate in the present appeals have been dealt with by the Tribunal in Audi case and he further submitted that in the present case also the chassis is supplied by Tata Motors and others free of cost to the appellants and after the body is built the vehicles are sent to the depots of the Tata Motors and others. Since the chassis is supplied free of cost, the transaction cannot be said to be principal to principal basis and therefore the value is to be determined under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. He further submitted that following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles (supra) the Commissioner s orders are required to be upheld by the Tribunal. 10. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue involved in these appeals is regarding determination of assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellants pursuant to the chassis supplied to them free of cost by Tata Motors and others. The contention of the Revenue is that the assessable value is to be determined under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 whereas the appellants contend that the value is to be determined under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case, the Tribunal after considering the submissions with regard to the applicability of the Supreme Court s decision in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. Collector (supra) and the Board s clarification in respect of service tax matter, held that activity of the assessee is squarely covered by Rule 10A and not under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are reproduced below :- 16. Considering the facts of the said case and the context in which the expression job work , had been understood and explained by the Apex Court in Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd., it cannot be said that the Apex Court has ruled that the expression job work , in every provision of law is to be understood irrespective of the context in which the same is used therein. Learned DR is right in contending that the decision of the Apex Court was in the facts of that case and particularly with reference to the context in which the said expression was used in the said notification. 17. Rule 10A undoubtedly speaks of work on behalf of the principal manufacturer. It does not use the expression for the manufacturer. In that connection as said earlier, atten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is evident that the expression on behalf of used in Rule 10A denotes the manufacturer of the excisable goods. The said expression cannot be understood in a manner sought to be argued on behalf of the appellants that it would refer to representation to the third party on behalf of the principal manufacturer in relation to the product manufactured. This is further clear from the explanation to Rule 10A. The explanation clearly states that the person engaged in the manufacture of production of goods on behalf of a principal manufacturer, from any inputs or goods supplied by the said principal manufacturer or by any other person authorized by him would be a job worker. In other words, the person who manufactures or produces the goods for or on behalf of the principal manufacturer is a job worker. Being so, it is difficult to agree with the contention canvassed on behalf of the appellants that the use of the expression on behalf of would reveal that in order to be a job worker he has to be a representative of or on behalf of the principal manufacturer to the third party in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods. The rule nowhere refers to any third person as such nor the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint about the said firms being sub-contractors and therefore had no occasion to produce the said documents and the arguments by the appellants in relation to this point are in an answer to what has been submitted on behalf of the department and in that context it is contended that the work by the said firms was in the nature of sub-contract. Therefore, the appellants cannot be accused of any suppression of documents. As already observed, we are not drawing any adverse inference for non-production of the documents. We have only observed that once it is sought to be contended that Rule 10A will have no application in the facts of the case, it was for the appellants to produce relevant documents like the invoice and agreement which would support the case putforth by the appellants. In that context in our considered opinion it was necessary for the appellants to disclose the nature of the understanding between the manufacturer of chassis and the said firms, and in case, such understanding was in the form of writing, to place on record the document in that respect. 21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to accept the contention that the work entrusted to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time. We, therefore, find that these decisions are distinguishable from the present case. 16. The ld. Sr. Advocate also relied on the Patna High Court s decision in the case of Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Ltd. which was in respect of body builders. We find that the decision of the Hon ble Patna High Court was in respect of show cause notice issued by the Excise Department demanding duty from Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd. and not from the body builders, whereas, in the present case the duty has been demanded from the appellants and not from Tata Motors. Moreover, when the decision was passed Rule 10A was not in existence. Therefore, we are of the view that the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case. 17. The appellants also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. M/s. Innocorp Ltd. mainly on the ground the said decision was in respect of the interpretation of Rule 10A and the Tribunal had taken a view that for applicability of Rule 10A the definition should satisfy three requirements viz. (i) he should manufacture or produce goods; (ii) he should do it on behalf of a principal manufacturer; and (iii) he should do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
