9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period is not invokable. Therefore, the demand of duty beyond the period of limitation is set aside and penalties on both the appellants before us are not imposable - demand of duty within the normal period of limitation is upheld. Cess may continue to be levied and collected on the vehicles on the condition they are cleared from the premises of the manufacturers and no cess should be levied again in case the body on the chassis is built by an independent body builder on the cess paid chassis. In the case of S.M. Kannappa Automobiles P. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Bangalore reported in [2007 (11) TMI 207 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], the issue came up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal held that as the body builder are not required to pay cess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Valuation Rules on the price at which the motor vehicles were sold by M/s. Tata Motors, but the appellants are paying duty under Rule 6 of Valuation Rules. Therefore, impugned proceedings were initiated against the appellant and differential duty is demanded as per valuation arrived at as per Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules and penalties on both the appellants were imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant are before us. 14. Heard both sides. 5. After hearing both the sides, we find that the issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hyva (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur reported in 2013-TIOL-166-CESTAT-MUM. = 2013 (292) E.L.T. 59 (Tri.-Mum.), wherein it was held that in such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was not objected. Moreover, the appellants have challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay. In these circumstances, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable and extended period is not invokable. Therefore, the demand of duty beyond the period of limitation is set aside and penalties on both the appellants before us are not imposable. 8. In these circumstances, we hold that the demand of duty within the normal period of limitation is upheld. 9. We further find that another issue in this matter is that whether the appellants are required to pay cess on automobile or not. The CBEC Circular vide Circular No. 41/88, dated 31-8-198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
