9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Nos. E/1132/2003 & 49/2005 - Final Order Nos. 555 & 556/2006 - Dated:- 3-7-2006 - [Order per: P.C. Chacko, Member (J)] - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles (cars). They sell their cars, on a principal-to- principal basis, to their dealers against payment of full sale consideration which includes mandatory warranty charges for one year. The applicable duty on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial duty on the cars sold to such customers from July, 2000 to September, 2001 and from April to December, 2003. These notices also proposed penalties on the party. These proposals were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the jurisdictional Commissioner passed two orders covering the above two periods and these orders are under challenge in appeal Nos. E/1132/2003 and E/49/2005. 3. Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew was taken after examining the nature of the transaction as under: "We have already noted that the first sale of the car is to dealers. Central Excise duty is being levied on manufacture. It i well-settled that the first sale transaction is the relevant price for the purpose of valuation of manufactured goods. In the present case, in the first sale price of the manufacturer, the cost of normal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate agreement with the dealer. The definition of transaction value in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act makes it clear that the payment must be by the buyer of the goods. In the present case, first buyer of the goods is not in the picture and makes no payment to the manufacturer or anybody else towards extended warranty. Thus the manufacturer's sale of car, and sale of extended warranty are two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
