9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, trailers and defence aggregators at their factories situated at Bangalore, KGF and Mysore. The appellant had intimated the Department that they were clearing the components by paying Central Excise duty 'under protest' for fulfilling warranty obligations on the grounds that the warranty charges have already been embedded in the total sale price of the equipment and no duty is payable on the clearances of the components against warranty obligations. A show-cause notice was issued for vacating the protest and for confirming the duty already paid. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order vacated the protest and regularized the duty paid by the appellant under protest, further ordered payment of duty for the clearance of warranty s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and submitted that the appellant has discharged the duty as per Section 4(3)(d). It is his further submission that the Commissioner (A) has wrongly relied upon the decision rendered in the case of BHEL vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 10 because the said decision was based on earlier Valuation Rules whereas the whole valuation aspect changed after the introduction of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. He also relied upon the Circular of the Board No.354/81/2000-TRU dated 30.6.2000. He further submitted that in assessee's own case, in another factory located in different Commissionerate, the Commissioner (A) has decided in favour of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal value of the equipment at the time of removal of the original equipment. We also find that the appellant has not charged any price for the replacement of the goods during the warranty period. The case relied upon by the learned Commissioner (A) in the case of BHEL cited supra is not applicable as the same was decided under the earlier Valuation Rule and not under the Valuation Rules of 2000 which are applicable in the present case. We also find that with regard to the same issue the Commissioner (A), Mangalore has allowed the appeal of the assessee and the appellant has got the refund and therefore, we hold that the department cannot take a contrary stand with regard to the same issue by different Commissionerates and in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
