9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Yashpal Singh , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER P. ANJANI KUMAR : The appellant, M/s SML Isuzu Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of light and medium commercial vehicles and luxury buses; the appellants supplied chassis of motor vehicles to their jobworkers at Dera Bassi and Rohad; the job-workers returned the vehicles after body-building to the appellants; the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 10A; the incidence of duty paid by the job-workers is borne by the appellants body-builders for the appellants are not the job-workers; the transaction between the appellants and the bodybuilders is not sale of body; the body-builders did not manufacture the vehicles on behalf of the appellants and there is no tripartite agreement to allege the same; the body built vehicles are assessable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic Watches Ltd. - 2011 (21) STR 34 (Tri. Ahmd.) Auto Coats - 2009 (15) STR 398 (Tri. Chennai) TELCO - 1988 (35) ELT 617. Citabul Ltd. - 1985 (22) ELT 302 (SC). Basant Industries - 1995 (75) ELT 21 (SC). Ujagar Prints - 1987 (27) ELT 567 (SC) clarified by 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC). Reliance Industries Ltd. - 2010 (259) ELT 356 (Gujarat) Star Trading Co. - 2010 (259) ELT 347 (Bomba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TD.208(362)ELT.778 SITA SINGH AND SONS PVT. LTD.- 2020(374)ELT.131 4. Heard learned Authorized Representative and perused the records of the case. We find that this case is no longer res integra having been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles (supra) and a number of cases involving one of the bodybuilders. We find that following this decision, this Bench has decided the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find any illegality in the impugned order as far as the demand of duty and interest payable thereon from the appellants. 5. In view of the above, we find that valuation of the goods in the impugned case is to be made in terms of Rule 10A of CEVR, 2000 and to that extent, we find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. ( Operative part of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
