Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1461 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - body built vehicles - addition of transport cost and transit insurance in assessable value - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value at the job worker’s end, the cost of transportation and the transit insurance will need to be added so as to arrive at the value in the hands of the job worker - thus, the transport cost as well as transit insurance are required to be added for payment of duty by Hyva. Whether it is required to add cess at the rate of .125% as well as an amount of ₹ 10,000/-? HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE VERSUS DAI ICHI KARKARIA LTD. [1999 (8) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] , has held that the cost of production of excisable product cannot include the element of duty paid on the raw material, but availed as modvat credit by the manufacturer - In this case, the automobile cess paid at the rate of .125% by TML is not availed as cenvat credit by Hyva and hence the same is required to be added to the value by Hyva. Whether the amount of ₹ 10,000/- paid by TML as additional BED on the chassis is required to be added? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the amount of ₹ 10,000/- has been availed as cenvat credit by Hyva. However, the adjudicating authority has still included this amount in the value with the findings that Hyva has extended a discount of ₹ 10,000/- on the body built price - since there is no dispute that Hyva has availed additional BED of ₹ 10,000/- as cenvat credit, there is no justification for addition of the same. Time Bar - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has not given any specific reason for coming to such conclusion other than a blank observation that the assessee short paid duty by way of suppression of valuation as well as suppression of facts of non-receipt of amount equal to additional BED at specific rate. It was very much within the knowledge of the Department that Hyva has carried out body building for TML and the manufactured vehicles were being paid duty in terms of Valuation Rules - invoking the suppression clause is without basis. Consequently, the demand for differential duty is to be restricted to normal time limit. The impugned order loading the assessable value with transport cost, transit insurance as well as automobile cess is upheld - the portion of the order for loading the assessable value with ₹ 10,000/- is et aside - demand restricted to normal period. Penalty on TML or on Hyva also set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
|