Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 733 - CESTAT KOLKATAValuation of motor vehicles manufactured by the job worker on the duty paid chassis supplied by the Appellant. Whether in relation to the body-built vehicles manufactured and cleared on payment of duty, on landed cost of chassis plus job-work charges, by the body-builder on the chassis supplied by the Appellant, differential excise duty can be demanded from the Appellant by adopting the final price at which the body-built vehicle is sold by the Appellant from RSOs as assessable value for the period prior to 01.04.2007? HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra as in the Appellant own case, viz. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1988 (2) TMI 72 - PATNA HIGH COURT (RANCHI BENCH), RANCHI], the Hon’ble Patna High Court has held that the Appellant who merely supplies the chassis to body-builder and receives the body-built vehicle from the body-builder, is not the manufacturer of the body-built vehicle, even though the Appellant supervises the quality of such body-built vehicles before clearance by body-builder. The Hon’ble High Court held the body builders only to be the actual manufacturers. This judgment has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.O.I. VERSUS TATA ENGG. & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. [1996 (1) TMI 435 - SC ORDER]. Thus, the job-worker is the actual manufacturer and not the raw-material supplier. In the present case, the activity of building body on the chassis amounts to the manufacture of motor vehicles, in terms of the Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Accordingly, the body builder has rightly paid excise duty at the time of clearance of bodybuilt vehicle to the RSO. Thus, the demand of duty from the Appellant is not sustainable and therefore, the duty confirmed in the impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.
|