9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 (7) TMI 346 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] on more than one occasion against the appellants. CESTAT in the case of Audi Automobiles [ 2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] held that ' it is apparent that the said firms had cleared the goods in relation to the body fabricating and mounting on the chassis which were supplied to the said firms free of cost by the manufacturer of chassis. Being so, the activity for the purpose of valuation would squarely fall under Rule 10A and not under Rule 6. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned order as far as the demand of duty and interest payable thereon from the appellants.' Conclusion - The transactions involving job work on behalf of a principal manufacturer fall under Rule 10A f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 duty in terms of Section 4(1)(B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules; the appellant is entitled for refund as well as the interest on the same. They relied on the following: Circular F. No. 132/111/2007/CX.4 dated 18.07.2007. Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. 1994 (73) ELT 497 (SC). Patnaik Company 1965 (16) STC 364. M.G Brothers 1975 (35) STC 24 (SC). Jiwan Singh Sons 1963 (14) STC 957 (P H). Haji Abdu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 case involving M/s Sita Singh on more than one occasion against the appellants. We find that CESTAT in the case of Audi Automobiles (supra) held that: 21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to accept the contention that the work entrusted to the said firms was not to a job work within the meaning of expression under Rule 10A or that it was not the work on behalf of the principal manufacturer. In the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
