TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue in AUDI AUTOMOBILES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the Tribunal has not imposed any penalty observing that it is an interpretation of law. In these circumstances, as the department could not place any contrary evidence to rebut the claim of the Applicants that the total liability in all these cases, would come down to Rupees Seven & Crores and Fifty Lakhs, if the price at which the goods sold by M/s. TML, is considered as a cum-duty price. There was no convincing reply from the department in response to the affidavit filed by the Applicant as to why the price at which the good were sold were not to be treated as cum-duty price in view of the explanation to section 4 - It was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15,64,61,604/- 2,05,33,991/- 15,64,61,604/- 06. E/S/421/12 (E/258/12) TATA MOTORS NA NA 15,59,38,054/- 07. E/S/422/12 (E/259/12) DHANU KUMAR NA NA 8,00,000/- 08. E/S/423/12 (E/260/12) J.KRISHNASWAMI NA NA 60,00,000/- 09. E/S/425/12 (E/262/12) J.KRISHNASWAMI NA NA 50,00,000/- 10. E/S/426/12 (E/263/12) DHANU KUMAR NA NA 75,000/- 11. E/S/429/12 (E/264/12) BHAWANI PRESS METAL 4,18,12,665/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NA 12,00,000/- 24. E/617/12 (E/371/12) DHANU KUMAR NA NA 60,000/- TOTAL 49,72,77,697.22 7,43,52,503.22 100,25,85,996.22 2. The Ld. Sr. Advocate Shri V. Sreedharan narrating the facts in brief, which are common in all these application, submitted that M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. had supplied duty-paid chassis, to M/s Hyva India Ltd. and other body builders, for building the body on the said chassis during the period from May, 2007 to March, 2009. After fabricating/mounting the body on the duty paid chassis, the completed vehicle falling under Chapter 87 of CETA,1985, were cleared to the Regional Sales office(RSO) of M/s. Tata Motors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e price at which the vehicles were sold by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. from respective RSOs considering the same as assessable value, instead of cum duty price as prescribed under the Explanation to Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Ld. Advocate drew our attention to a detailed affidavit filed by the respective applicants in support of this fact. According to the Ld. Advocate, if the value at which the goods are sold by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. is taken as cum-duty price, the entire demand would be reduced to Rs.7.50 Crores (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakh). The Ld. Advocate made a fair offer to deposit Rupees Two Crores pending disposal of the Appeal and prayed that the said amount be allowed to be deposited by the Applicant M/s. Tata Motor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d perused the records. We find that the present issue apparently covered by two judgements of this Tribunal in Audi Automobiles case as well as Hyva Motor s case (supra). Ld. Sr. Advocate has made an extensive argument bringing out the anomalies in these judgements and submitted that the observation in the judgements are contrary to the principles laid down by Hon ble Apex Court and hence cannot be relied upon. We find the issue is a daba table one, and as rightly pointed out by the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue, prima facie it cannot be denied that all these contentions of the Applicants, were considered by this Tribunal while passing the judgement in the aforesaid two cases. However, we find that there is no convincing reply from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Only) within a period of 4(four) weeks and report compliance on 03.06.2013. On deposit of the said amount, the balance amount of dues adjudged, against all the applicants, would stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during pendency of the Appeals. Failure to deposit the said amount would result in dismissal of the appeals of all the applicants without further notice. Both sides made a request that since the amount involved in the present case are substantial, early hearing of the Appeals may be granted. Considering the said request, subject to deposit of the aforesaid amount, with the consent of both sides, hearing of all the Appeals is fixed on 06.08.2013. (Pronounced and dictated in the open cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
