Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1162 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - job-work - place of removal - Revenue felt that since the appellant were transferring the goods to the sale depots of the principal manufacturer, the assessable value should be done in terms of Section 4(1) (b) instead of Section 4(1) (a) - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of AUDI AUTOMOBILES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], where it was held that it is apparent 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 - the valuation of the goods is required to be done under Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules 2000. Adjustment of excess duty paid or less duty paid as compared to depot price - Held that: - since the goods have not been assessed provisionally at the time of clearance from the factory of the assessee, adjustment of duty paid in excess, if any, cannot be adjusted against the duty demand recoverable from the assessee - duty demand not sustainable. Valuation - allowability - certain discounts and cum duty price vs. net assessable value - Held that: - the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification of documentary evidence produced by the appellant and to establish the correct assessable value and to re-quantify the demand and interest, if the contention of the appellant is found correct. Appeal disposed off by way of remand.
|