Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (11) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me for the purpose of assessment under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of front axle assembly (motor vehicle part) falling under sub-heading 8708 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are supplying the above goods to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL) and to various other original equipment (OE) manufacturers in the present case we are concerned with their supply to M/s. MUL. On the basis of purchase orders placed by MUL the appellants supply front axle assembly for OE requirement at a lesser price compared to the price of the same goods supplied against spares requirement. Out of the total quantity supplied to MUL more than 90% would cover OE requirement and spare .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ifferent price for OE and spare supplies. Copies of invoice-cum-delivery challan were also filed by the appellants which would clearly show that they were charging separately for OE and spares. RT 12 returns were filed along with the gate passes. Thus according to the assessee, every assessment documents would clearly indicate that the same item was being supplied at two different prices to MUL. 4. The adjudicating authority repelled all the contentions raised by the assessee and the demand under the show cause notice was confirmed. An equal amount of penalty was imposed and interest under Section 11AB was also directed to be paid. The Commissioner took the view that trade practice has got no legal sanction so far as the Central Excise Ru .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erent categories, he becomes in fact buyer under two different classes (i.e. commercial levels). A manufacturer user is at different commercial level as compared to trader. In the present case MUL is a buyer component for OE requirement as a manufacturer whereas MUL places orders for spares, it is in the role of a trader/dealer. The learned Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner has wrongly declined to follow the ratio of CCE v. Hodak Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The above decision was later followed by this Tribunal in New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 410 (Tri.-Del.). In order to substantiate his contention that there can be more than one price for the sale to the same buyer reliance was placed on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the two different sale prices in respect of the same goods to the same buyer and therefore, invocation of the larger period of limitation is justified. 7. Certain facts are not disputed before us. Sale of front axle assembly to MUL was on the basis of different purchase orders placed by MUL for OE requirement and for spares requirement. The quantum of sale for OE requirement is more than 90%. The question to be considered is whether in the above circumstances can there be two different assessable values in respect of front axle assembly supplied for OE requirement and such goods supplied for spares requirement. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellants and the buyer are related persons. There is no material relied upon by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade as provided under Section 4(1)(a). The provision under Section 4(1)(a) can be given a go by only when the department can prove that the buyer is a related person or the price is not the sole consideration for the sale. This is the view taken by this Tribunal in CCE, Meerut v. Pashupati Acrylon Ltd. after making reference to MRF Ltd. case. We find no reason to take a different view on the facts of the present case. We, therefore, hold that the Commissioner was not justified in holding that assessable value of the front axle assembly sold to MUL for OE requirement should be computed on the basis of the price for spare parts requirement which as mentioned earlier comes only to less t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates