TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of valuation would squarely fall under Rule 10A and not under Rule 6 - the valuation of the goods is required to be done under Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules 2000. Adjustment of excess duty paid or less duty paid as compared to depot price - Held that: - since the goods have not been assessed provisionally at the time of clearance from the factory of the assessee, adjustment of duty paid in excess, if any, cannot be adjusted against the duty demand recoverable from the assessee - duty demand not sustainable. Valuation - allowability - certain discounts and cum duty price vs. net assessable value - Held that: - the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification of documentary evidence produced by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be the value of the vehicle sold at sales depot of the principal manufacturer as per Rule 10A (ii) of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Accordingly, the show cause notice was issued which was adjudicated, resulting in confirmation of demand of ₹ 43,12,567 along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant have filed this appeal. 2. Ld.Advocate fairly submits that the issue is no longer res integra inasmuch as it stands settled by this Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles vs. CCE-2010 (249) ELT 124 (Tri.-Del.) laying down that the valuation of the vehicle has to be done in terms of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation(Determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Audi Automobiles (supra) wherein in an identical situation, the demands of duty and interest was upheld and penalty was set aside, relevant para 21 of the said judgment is reproduced below: 21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to accept the contention that the work entrusted to the said firms was not to a job work within the meaning of expression under Rule 10A or that it was not the work on behalf of the principal manufacturer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the said firms had cleared the goods in relation to the body fabricating and mounting on the chassis which were supplied to the said firms free of cost by the manufacturer of chassis. Being so, the activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment of goods being cleared by them. Since the goods have not been assessed provisionally at the time of clearance from the factory of the assessee, adjustment of duty paid in excess, if any, cannot be adjusted against the duty demand recoverable from the assessee. Therefore, the contention of the defense counsel that no duty is demandable from the assessee, cannot be accepted. 8. On the issue of not allowing certain discounts and cum duty price vs. net assessable value as claimed by Revenue, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification of documentary evidence produced by the appellant and to establish the correct assessable value and to re-quantify the demand and interest, if the contention of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
