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 548 - CESTAT BANGALOREMethod of Valuation - clearance of the fully built vehicle by the appellant-assessee to M/s Tata Motors Ltd, the supplier of the inputs to appellant-assessee - job-worker-principal relationship - Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Held that:- It is not in dispute by either side that appellant-assessee is a job worker and the clearances are not at ‘arm’s length’ in the manner that clearances effected to their authorized dealers are. According to appellant-assessee, the adoption of the price at which goods are sold to authorized dealers is the most apt in terms of section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant-assessee, being a job worker, is liable to duty on the value of the goods transferred for the purposes of undertaking job-work and the job-work charges recovered from the principal. On the job-work charges, there is no dispute. The cycle of commercial activity in the impugned transaction involves transfer of the ‘chassis’ to the appellant-assessee, discharge of duty liability by the principal manufacturer, transfer of the finished goods to the depots of the principal manufacturer after discharge of duty liability by the job-worker and final clearance thereafter. Till the delivery of the goods to the ultimate buyer of ‘built-up vehicles’, the valuation for the purpose of determination of duties of central excise is the cost of manufacture. The price at which goods are cleared by M/s Tata Motors Ltd to their authorized dealers includes, other than the cost of manufacture, the cost of transportation and the profit component. The adoption of this price for determining the duty liability in the hands of the principal manufacturer is not in any way prejudicial to Revenue and, therefore, cannot be a cause of grievance to the tax authorities. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|