9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins to Unit-I at Jabalpur and Appeal No. E/51773/2017 pertains to Unit-II at Mandala. 2. This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Earlier, the Tribunal vide its Final Order Nos. A/52386/2016-Ex (DB) dated 30.06.2016 and A/54942/2016-Ex (DB) dated 07.11.2016 has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. In compliance with the remand order, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned orders where the demand was sustained along with penalty and interest. Since the demand in respect of both the Units is interlinked, both the instant appeals are disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, both the Units of the assessee-Appellants (Unit-I and Unit-II) were engaged in fabricating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. after paying the duty on the chassis including the value of the body built on it. 5. Another dispute relates to Unit-II in respect of 34 such chassis received from M/s Tata Motors Ltd. The Department was of the view that in respect of 160 duty paid chassis on which body was built by Unit-II, duty was required to be paid by Unit-II on the entire value of chassis + body built thereon at the time of returning the same to Unit-I. Likewise, duty was also liable to be paid by Unit-II in respect of 34 number of chassis. Differential duty was demanded from both the Units (Unit-I & Unit-II) as per the calculations given in the impugned orders. Being aggrieved, the assessee-Appellants have filed the present appeals. 6. With this background, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Revenue, justified the impugned order. He submits that at the time of clearance of the body built chassis, the Unit-I as well as Unit-II was required to pay the duty in full. However, in the present case, even though Unit-I as well as Unit-II has paid the differential duty, still they are liable to pay the demand raised. 9. Heard both sides and perused the record. 10. Dispute pertains to the appellants' two units wherein they are engaged in the business of building body over the chassis manufactured and supplied by motor vehicle manufacturers such as M/s Tata Motors Ltd. The dispute involved in both the appeals is in respect of duty paid chassis received from M/s Tata Motors by one of the two units. After availing the Cenvat Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first unit has paid the duty on value including that of the chassis. The excise duty demand has been raised on the second unit where the body has been built. But from records it is seen that at the time of transfer of the chassis to the second unit for activity of body building, the Cenvat Credit of duty on the chassis has not been transferred. Since the second unit has not taken the credit of duty paid on the chassis, we are of the view that the second unit is allowed to discharge the duty without including the value of chassis. We find that such duty has already been paid. Consequently, the demand for differential duty raised against the two units cannot be sustained. 13. The appellant has also raised the argument that this is a case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
