2018 (10) TMI 823 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Method of Valuation – fabrication of bodies of motor vehicles falling under Chapter heading 8704, for original equipment manufacturers – appellant paid duty on the basis of the cost construction – Revenue was of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant is in the nature of job work and hence valuation is required to be determined in line with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 – Held that:- Tribunal in various cases has held that the valuation is required to be determined in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and accordingly differential duty demand has become payable – reliance placed in the case of M/S COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, JABALPUR [2018 (10) TMI 456 – CESTAT NEW DELHI].
–
The adjudicating authority is directed to requantify and restrict the demand to the normal time limit – appeal allowed by way of remand. – Ex. Appeal No. 50990 & 51329 of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hicles are cleared back to TML on payment of duty. The dispute in the present appeals relate to the valuation adopted by the appellant for payment of duty on such manufactured motor vehicles. The duty was paid by the appellant on the basis of the cost construction, in line with the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujjagar Prints vs. Union of India 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC). However, Revenue was of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant is in the nature of job work and hence valuation is required to be determined in line with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. As per this Rule 10A ibid the Central Excise duty is required to be paid on the value at which the principal manufacturer sells the motor vehicle ultimately. The show cause 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.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE, AP -2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC), the appellant will be entitled to the demand being restricted to normal time limited. 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue justified the impugned order. 6. The issue of valuation of the motor vehicles manufactured by the appellant, on job work basis on the chassis received after payment of duty from TML, has been settled in various decisions. The Tribunal has held that the valuation is required to be determined in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and accordingly differential duty demand has become payable. In this connection, we reproduce the ratio of the decision in the case of Commercial Engineers & Body Builders (supra). In the final Order dated 2.11.2017, the Tribunal 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 a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =