2017 (5) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - body building charge which is the price of the body plus cost of chassis - chassis supplied free of cost to appellant - includibility - Held that - an identical issue in the assessee-Appellants own case Audi Automobiles vs CCE Indore 2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has come up before this Tribunal where it was held that the said firms had cleared the goods in relation to the body fabricating and mounting on the chassis which were supplied to the said firms free of cost by the manufacturer of chassis. Being so the activity for the purpose of valuation would squarely fall under Rule 10A and not under Rule 6 therefore do not find any illegality in the impugned order as far as the demand of duty and interest payable thereon from the appellants. But no penalty can be imposed. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore for the period April 2008 to November 2008.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against an Order-in-Original issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, concerning the valuation of excisable goods by M/s Audi Automobiles. The assessee determined the assessable value of vehicles based on body building charges and cost of chassis supplied by Tata Motors Limited (TML). Allegations were made that the assessee contravened Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The assessee contended that the assessable value should be the transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) when goods are sold to unrelated parties. Despite submissions, the Commissioner confirmed the demand against the assessee.

The matter was appealed to the Tribunal, which remanded it back to the Adjudicating Authority. Subsequently, the Commissioner sustained the demand, leading to the present appeals. In the Tribunal hearing, the issue of penalties was discussed based on previous judgments in the assessee's case. It was noted that penalties were set aside in previous instances due to the interpretation of law and reliance on relevant decisions. Following previous orders, the Tribunal upheld the demand of duty and interest but dropped all penalties imposed on the assessee.

In conclusion, the appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, with the demand of duty and interest upheld, while penalties were dropped. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions and previous judgments in similar cases involving the assessee. The judgment provided clarity on the valuation of excisable goods and the applicability of penalties in such matters, ensuring a fair and reasoned outcome for the parties involved.