9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the respondents have paid duty on the ultimate sales price of M/s. MFIL to its dealers/customers. The fact of the case is that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and parts thereof falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in their factory at Nashik. The respondents during the disputed period, besides manufacturing their own range of vehicles also undertook manufacturing of vehicles on behalf of MFIL. An operational agreement dt. 9.8.1996 to this effect was entered into between the respondents and M/s. MFIL. As per agreement respondents were appointed as supporting manufacturer; requisite material would be supplied by M/s. MFIL; interest free trade advance to finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on behalf of M/s. MFIL. For the purpose of determination of the value under Section 4 of the Act, M/s. MFIL have furnished information including the price at which they are selling their goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty on the notional interest on the trade advance given by M/s. MFIL to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the orders-in-original and allow the appeal filed by the respondent. Therefore the Revenue is before us. 2. Shri Ajaykumar Ld. Joint Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the advances provided by M/s. MFIL to the respondent is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to influence the price at which excise duty was discharged. As per the grounds of Revenue s appeal, the proposal to include the notional interest is as if the respondent is paying duty on their own value which is factually incorrect. He has taken us to some sample invoices issued by the respondent to M/s. MFIL and the invoices issued by M/s. MFIL to their customer in respect of the same product. He submits that the value at which excise duty was paid by the respondent in their invoice, the same value which was charged by M/s. MFIL to their customer, therefore the price is in confirmation of Section 4(1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore the proposal to include the notional interest is baseless. He submits that the notional in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be added if it exceeds the assessable value. This is only possible in two cases which we discussed above. Therefore for this reason also the notional interest which has not influenced the value in the present case cannot be charged to excise duty. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has considered all the aspects, agreement and fact of the case and given his finding for allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. The relevant order is reproduced below: "I have examined the matter, I find that the submissions of the appellants are borne out by the record and even the Order-in-Original clearly has omitted to take into account the existence of Section 4(1)(a) price and the assessable value based on that. The Order-in-Original does not establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
