Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 2051 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances for determining value of clearances - Whether the value of duty paid engine fitted chassis supplied by owner of chassis for manufacture / fabrication of body on such chassis has to be included for determining aggregate value of clearance for the purpose of Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01 March, 2003? - Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the transaction between the appellant and the supplier of the duty paid Automobile chassis was on principal to principal basis and, therefore, the consideration charged for the body building by the appellant from the supplier of duty paid automobile chassis will constitute the transaction value for the purpose of valuation of excisable goods for the purpose of charging the duty of excise. The transaction between the appellant and its principal manufacture i.e. supplier of duty paid automobile chassis is only for fabrication charges which the appellant undertook on the duty paid chassis of the automobile. It is beyond comprehension as to how the value of the excisable product which has been manufactured by some other assessee / person and which is duty paid can be included in the aggregate value of the clearances of small scale industry manufacturer, which is only undertaking the fabrication work of body. Only fabrication charges of the body which have been built on the duty paid chassis need to be taken for determining the aggregate value of the clearance for the purpose of Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01 March, 2003 as that is the transaction value between the chassis supplier and the body building unit. Thus, the demand under the show cause notice and impugned order in appeal is legally not sustainable. Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice was issued on 18 February, 2014 by invoking the extended time proviso under section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by alleging that the appellant had indulged in fraud, suppression of facts, mis-representation with an intent to evade duty. None of these elements are present in the present case. The Department has also not adduced any evidence to support its claim that the appellant indulged in any of the activities, such as fraud, misrepresentation, suppression etc. with an intent to evade payment of duty. The issue at hand is primarily a matter of interpretation and same cannot be taken as suppression of facts with a malafide intent to evade payment of duty. Thus, the demand under the impugned Show cause notice is also barred by limitation, and therefore, the demand of Central Excise duty is also legally not sustainable. The impugned order in appeal deserves to be set aside and is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|