9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmit that the transaction value of M/s. TML is to be adopted after deducting in addition to the excise duty Sales Tax/VAT paid by M/s. TML and CST paid by the appellants. The point raised by the appellants is valid for arriving at the duty liability. The matter needs to go back to the Original Authority - penalties are set aside - appeals are allowed by way of remand with a direction to the Original Authority to quantify the duty considering the reasonable & applicable deductions on account of Excise Duty/VAT/CST etc. paid by M/s. TML and by the appellants. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufactured on job-works basis; the chassis was sold by M/s. TML for a price and valuation in terms of Section 4(1)(a) read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is correct and the imposition of penalty was not sustainable. 2.3 The SCN at serial no. 1 was adjudicated by Additional Commissioner vide Order No. 31/2008 dated 30.08.2008 and was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order No. 83/2009 dated 05.08.2009. The SCNs serial no. 2,3,4 were adjudicated by Commissioner vide Orders No. 15-17/2009 dated 20.08.2009. The Appeal No. E/1029/2009 was filed against this order and was hear on 14.08.2018. The Appeal No. E/1002/2009 was filed against the demand at serial no. 1 and was heard on 03.09.2018 as the issue involved in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. UOI- 1982 (10) ELT 142 (Bom.). (vi) Goa Bottling Company (P) Ltd. and Others Vs. UOI 1987 (28) ELT 215 (Bom.). 3.2 By the ratio of the above decisions to be follows that manufacture on behalf of would mean that the job-worker is either an employee of the supplier of raw materials or is an agent of the latter. In the instant case, the appellants are not agents of the principal manufacturer therefore the conditions enshrined in Rule 10A are not attracted. The motor vehicle is not manufactured on behalf of principal manufacturer therefore Rule 10A is not applicable. This view is clarified by CBEC Circular No. F.132/111/2007/CX.4 dated 18.07.2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. Vs. CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that whereas the duty confirmed by the Additional Commissioner (in respect of SCN at serial no. 1) and by Commissioner (in respect of SCN at serial no. 2,3,4) was ₹ 21,01,288/- and ₹ 3,88,31,569 respectively and actual duty payable comes to ₹ 14,39,693/-(in respect of serial no.1) and ₹ 1,14,98,881/- (in respect of SCN at serial no. 2,3,4). Department have only excluded the element of excise duty from the assessable value for quantification of the demand, in addition to above, the sales tax/VAT paid by M/s. TML and the CST paid by the appellants also required to be deducted. Department has not adopted the cum-duty price in terms of Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They relied upon their own case Hyva (I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department only excluded the element of excise duty from the assessable value, for quantification of demand, appellants submit that the transaction value of M/s. TML is to be adopted after deducting in addition to the excise duty Sales Tax/VAT paid by M/s. TML and CST paid by the appellants. Therefore, we find that the point raised by the appellants is valid for arriving at the duty liability. As such, the matter needs to go back to the Original Authority. In view of the ratio of the cases cited above, penalties, however, need to be set aside. 6. In view of the above, we allow the appeals by way of remand with a direction to the Original Authority to quantify the duty considering the reasonable & applicable deductions on account of Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
