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

2009 (11) TMI 764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t appellant. - E/2629/2004 - A/322/2009-WZB/C-I/EB - Dated:- 26-11-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko and B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Shri H.B. Negi, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri R. Nambirajan, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The issue involved in the appeal is valuation of bullet proof vehicles supplied to Jammu Kashmir Police by the respondent. Two purchase orders were placed on the respondent. Both the orders have similar terms and conditions except difference in prices. Two orders were placed on Mahindra Defence Systems on 2-8-200 (sic) and 23-3-2002, a division of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. (MML). Base vehicles were cleared from manufacturing unit in Nasik on payment of duty on the basis of value indicated in the purchase order. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... purpose of payment of central excise duty by separating bullet proofing activity. What was intended by both sides was a single transaction with a single transaction value which would be the correct basis for levy of central excise duty. It was also submitted that after amendment of Section 4 of the Act, the concept of deemed normal price is no longer valid and actual transaction value is what is to be considered. Learned D.R. also relied upon Note 6 to Chapter XVI in support of his contention that vehicle in this case is to be treated as incomplete or semi-finished and therefore cost of bullet proofing is also to be added. 3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in this case respondent has assessed base vehicle before removal; i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on . Rule 174 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 required every manufacturer to be registered and CBEC is empowered to specify conditions and limitations. The Board vide notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 as amended has prescribed conditions. According to the notification, if a registered person has more than one premises, he shall obtain separate registration certificate for each premises. The fact that each premises should have a registration emerges from the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Act which requires determination of value at the place of removal. Naturally, place of removal has to be one place. What follows from the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... observations relevant are reproduced below for better appreciation:- 15. Now the question as to under these types of transaction and circumstances, whether the value of processing carried out by the independent contractor can be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared, without carrying out such process from the appellants premises. In this regard the appellants have referred to the CBEC Circular No. 139/08/2000-CX dated 4-1-2001 on the subject, in which while dealing with similar circumstances, the Board has clarified as under: In view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Siddharth Tubes Ltd. [2000 (115) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.)] and in J.G. case [1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)] Ministry of Law was requested to advise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wo member Bench headed by the President of the Tribunal, in Castrol India Ltd. v. C.C.E, New Delhi - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 35 (Tribunal) = 2000 (41) RLT 652 (CEGAT). In that case blended lubricating oil was removed from the place of manufacture in bulk in tankers to the depots/packing place from where oil was sold after repacking in smaller quantities. The cost of packing done at the depot/packing place was sought to be included in assessable value even after amendment of Section 4, effective from 28-9-1996, but the same was disallowed by the Tribunal and it was observed as under:- In the case of removal of goods from the depot the time of removal shall be the time at which such goods were cleared from the factory as per definition of time .....

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