9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utomobile components) manufactured on job work basis by M/s. Sharda Motor Industries Limited ('SMIL' for short). The inputs required for the manufacture of exhaust systems were supplied free of cost by the appellants. The cost of these inputs was included in the assessable value of the exhaust systems for payment of duty by M/s. SMIL and duty was paid accordingly. CENVAT credit of the duty so paid was taken by the appellants. It so happened that there were price variations in respect of the inputs supplied by the appellants to M/s. SMIL. Where there was price increase, M/s. SMIL included the differential value in the assessable value of the exhaust systems and paid differential duty on the goods by raising supplementary invoices on the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferential duty on the exhaust systems. That demand was based on the alleged fact that the revised value of the inputs supplied by the appellants had not been taken into account by M/s. SMIL for payment of duty on the exhaust systems. The party contested the demand mainly on the ground of limitation. The dispute came to be adjudicated upon by the jurisdictional Commissioner, who confirmed the demand of duty against M/s. SMIL. The party preferred an appeal to this Tribunal and the same was allowed in part by setting aside the claim for interest on duty and also the penalty vide Sharda Motor Industries Ltd. VS. CCE, Chennai-IV [2004 (165) ELT 66 (Tri. Del)]. 4. In the present appeal, the appellant has relied on the above decision of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant's buyer. Therefore, appellant's submission that short-levy took place on account of oversight (to take note of variation in prices) appears to represent the correct factual position. There is also merit in the appellant's submission that this was not a case where 115% of the cost was required to be adopted for valuation, inasmuch as that Rule (Rule 8) relates to valuation of manufactured goods being captively consumed and not of goods which are purchased and supplied to job workers. Revenue authorities, M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. and the appellant would appear to be proceeding under a wrong impression about what constituted the value of free supply catalyst. Proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act cannot be attracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ………………………… (ii) ………………………….. (iii)………………………….. (iv) …………………………. (b) A supplementary invoice, issued by a manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods in terms of the provisions of Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 from his factory or from his depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or importer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of, the said manufacturer or importer, in case additional amount of excise duties or additional duty of customs leviable under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) has been paid, except where the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods on account of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
