9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .07.2000, the value of free supplied goods by the buyer which is used in connection with the production of the goods, to be sold to the buyer is includable in the assessable value - In the present case, the cenvat credit was availed by the buyer of the goods and not by the appellant. Therefore the landed cost of free supplied goods should be taken for inclusion in the assessable value, accordingly no deduction on account of excise duty of free supplied goods is permitted. No profit was added with reference to the addition of cost of free supplied goods. Therefore there is no question that excise duty is included in the cost of free supplied goods, accordingly cum duty price benefit cannot be extended in the peculiar facts of the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption up to the aggregate value of ₹ 1 crore. The appellants are selling the goods on transaction value on principal to principal basis. However, the buyer M/s. Schiwing Stetter (India) Pvt. Ltd. supplying to the appellant the goods Helical Geared motors and slew ring free of cost. The said parts are fitted with final product of the appellant i.e. Boom Drag Line Scrapper Cabin and sold to Schiwing Stetter. The appellant have not included the cost of said free supplied goods in the assessable value of their final product. Accordingly, demand of excise duty on the cost of such free supplied items was confirmed by the adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents:- Uniworth Textiles Ltd. - 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) CCE vs. Royal Enterprises - 2016 (337) ELT 482 (SC) SRF Ltd. - 2016 (331) ELT A-138 (SC) Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. - 2008 (228) ELT A64 (SC) Tenneco RC India Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (323) ELT A-299 (Mad) 5. He also submits that the benefit of cum-duty value was not extended. In this regard, he relied on the decision of CCE vs. Maruti Udyog ltd. 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC) 6. On the other hand, Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the submission of revenue neutrality does not sustain for the reason that due to inclusion of the value of goods supplied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such excisable goods and they are sold by the assessee at a price less than manufacturing cost and profit, and no additional consideration is flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to such assessee, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value.] [Explanation 1] - For removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the value, apportioned as appropriate, of the following goods and services, whether supplied directly or indirectly by the buyer free of charge or at reduced cost for use in connection with the production and sale of such goods, to the extent that such value has not been included in the price actually paid or payable, shall be treated to be the amount of money value of additional consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and supplies certain goods as per design and specification furnished by B at a price of ₹ 10 lakhs A takes 50% of the price as advance against these goods and there is no sale of such goods to any other buyer. There is no evidence available with the Central Excise Officer that the notional interest on such advance has resulted in lowering of the prices. Thus, no notional interest on the advance received shall be added to the transaction value.] 8. From the above Rule, it is explicitly clear that any goods supplied directly or indirectly by the buyer free of charge for use in connection with the production and sale of such goods to the extent that such value has not been included in the price actually paid or payable shall be trea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at credit was admittedly taken by the buyer. Secondly, the appellant, due to crossing the exemption limit of ₹ 1 crore are required to pay duty on other goods also. Therefore, the revenue neutrality does not apply in the facts of the present case. 11. As regards the limitation, we find that the appellant have not disclosed the fact of receipt of free supplied goods and use thereof in the production to the department at any point of time. Therefore, there is a clear suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. 12. As per our above discussion, inclusion of free supplied goods is just and legal; it does not require any interference. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
