9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants have been fabricating the tipper bodies for original equipment manufacturers like M/s Tata Motors Ltd. and M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd., on the duty paid chassis is supplied to the appellant by the OEM manufacturers. After manufacture of body on the duty paid chassis supplied by the OEM manufacturer, the appellant have cleared the same on payment of central excise duty under proper prescribed invoices and other documents. It has been the basic contention of the department that the appellant have not followed the prescribed procedure of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules (Determination of Price of Excisable Rules, 2000) in respect of motor vehicles cleared by them to M/s Tata Motors Ltd. sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 10A is not applicable for Determination of the Value of Excisable Goods manufactured on behalf of the principle by a job worker from the raw materials supplied by the principle manufacturer in their case. It has further been contended that since in their case, the principle manufacturer has not supplied any raw material for manufacture of body on the duty paid chassis supplied by principle manufacturer and, therefore, provision of Rule 10A are not applicable in their case. It has also been the argument by the learned Advocate that this Tribunal's order in the case of Audi Automobiles versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 124 (Tri. - Del.) relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Engineers & Body Builders Pvt Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal [Final Order No. 52044 - 52046 /2017 dated 28.2.2017] where it was observed that :- "4. Both sides agree that identical issue in respect of the very same appellant was decided by this bench in final order No. 52503-52504/2016 dated 04.07.2016, wherein the bench remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue. The said order has categorically stated that no penalty warrant in this case. The findings of the Tribunal in identical issue of the very same appellant are in Para 4 and 5, which are reproduced:- "4. We do find force in the appellants submission that their contention regarding non-includability of taxes in the assessable value for determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
