9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary 2010 is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The appeal is admitted on the above substantial question of law and taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. 3. The appellant - assessee is inter alia engaged in the activity of body building at their factory on the motor vehicle chassis supplied by Tata Motors Limited. The Tata Motors manufactures the chassis fitted with engines for motorvehicles and supplies the same to the appellant - assessee for body building on the chassis. Tata Motors has been clearing the chassis to the appellant - assessee on payment of excise duty and the cenvat credit of duty paid on such chassis is taken by the appellant - assessee. The assessee thereupon undertook the activity of body build ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transaction value of the said goods sold by the principal manufacturer; (ii) in a case where the goods are not sold by the principal manufacturer at the time of removal of goods from the factory of the jobworker, but are transferred to some other place from where the said goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory of jobworker and where the principal manufacturer and buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, the value of the excisable goods shall be the normal transaction value of such goods sold from such other place at or about the same time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of removal of said goods from the facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed the duty demand under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner further held that the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on the duty amount and imposed penalty of Rs.20,00,000/under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 8. Challenging the aforesaid order, the appellant - assessee filed an appeal before the CESTAT and moved an application seeking waiver of predeposit. By the impugned order dated 1st August 2011, the CESTAT directed the appellant - assessee to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/for entertaining the appeal. Challenging the aforesaid order, present Appeal is filed. 9. Mr.Shridharan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on body building activity 'on behalf of' Tata Motors and consequently Rule 10A has no application to the facts of the present case. Once a prima facie finding is recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the provisions of Rule 10A is not applicable to the facts of the present case, then, there would be no question of depositing the duly payable under Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules. The Tribunal, however, directed predeposit by relying upon its order dated 5th August 2008 in the assessee's own case wherein the assessee had voluntarily offered to make predeposit. 12. Perusal of the order of CESTAT dated 5th August 2008 clearly shows that the assessee voluntarily offered to make predeposit in that case, because, the issue being recurri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
