M/s Kamal Coach Works Pvt. Limited Versus CCCGST, Jaipur
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 823 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 18-9-2018
Ex. Appeal No. 50990 & 51329 of 2018 – A/53022–53023/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial)
Sh. Rahul Tangri, Advocate for the appellant
Sh. B. B. Jain, AR for the Respondent
ORDER
Per: V. Padmanabhan:
Excise Appeal No. 50990/2018 has been filed challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 21/18 dated 30.01.2018 which has covered the period February, 2012 to August, 2014. On the same issue the second Excise Appeal No. 51329/2018 has been filed challenging the Order-in-Original No. 41/2017-18 dated 15.02.2018 which covered the period January, 2016 to June, 2017.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in fabrication of bodies of motor vehicles falling under Chapter heading 8704, for original equipment manufacturers such as T
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
se notices issued on the same were finalised and ultimately the appeals are before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Sh. Rahul Tangri, ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as Sh. B. B. Jain, ld. AR for the Revenue.
4. Ld. Advocate submitted that the issue on merits is decided against the appellant in various decisions of the Tribunal including the decision in the appellant's own case reported as 2017 (1) TMI 533-CESTAT, New Delhi. However, he prays that the appellant will be entitled to the following reliefss:
(i) As held by the Tribunal in Final Order No. 52852/2018 dt. 24.08.2018 in the case of Commercial Engineers & Body Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jabalpur, the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of cum duty price since the price at which TML has ultimately sold the motor vehicle, includes the excise duty and other taxes.
(ii) In respect of the Ex. Appeal No.50990/2018, the ld. Advocate submitted that the period covered in the show cause notice dated 17.04.2015 is beyond the norma
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
observed as under:
“4. After hearing Shri Hemant Bajaj and Dhruv Tiwari, learned advocates for the appellant and Shri H C Saini, learned DR for the department and on perusal of material available on record, it appears that identical issue has came up before the Tribunal in the assessee's own case as Tata Motors Ltd. and Commercial 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =