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

2018 (3) TMI 267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the chassis. The excise duty demand has been raised on the second unit where the body has been built - Since the second unit has not taken the credit of duty paid on the chassis, the second unit is allowed to discharge the duty without including the value of chassis. It is found that such duty has already been paid. Consequently, the demand for differential duty raised against the two units cannot be sustained. The differential duty raised in the course of audit objection has already been paid by both the units but Revenue has raised the issue that such duty has been paid after delay and hence interest is required to be paid - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal Nos. 51773 & 51886 of 2017 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .2006. Serial no. 41 of the Notification provides for effective rate of duty payable on the value of the body part on the chassis where no Cenvat Credit is availed in respect of such duty paid chassis received for body building. In case Cenvat Credit of duty paid on such chassis is availed, the duty is required to be discharged on the complete value of the vehicle including chassis as well as body built thereon. 4. The duty paid chassis are received from M/s Tata Motors Ltd. in respect of appeal pertaining to the Unit-I at Jabalpur. Unit-I had received 160 duty paid chassis from M/s Tata Motors Ltd. and availed Cenvat Credit paid on such chassis. As Unit-I on account of certain internal exigencies was not able to fabricate the body on su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e summarised below : (i) He submits that from the point of view of Unit-I as well as Unit-II, the exercise of demand is revenue neutral as the chassis cleared by Unit-I and Unit-II have since been returned by Unit-I to Unit-II on payment of duty on the value of body built by Unit-II. From the perspective of Unit-II, he submits that since no Cenvat Credit was availed by Unit-II on the duty paid on the chassis was not required to include the same for payment of duty. Likewise, he argued that no demand can be made in respect of Unit-I as well as Unit-II; (ii) He also submits that any differential duty demanded from Unit-I and Unit-II and paid will also be available as Cenvat Credit in respect of other unit. Ultimately, there is no loss o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty without including the value of chassis. The original unit subsequently paid duty on the value of the vehicle including the chassis as well as the body while returning the same to M/s Tata Motors. Revenue is of the view that the second unit, where the body has been built is required to pay the duty by including the value of chassis. The differential duty involved has been demanded from both units in respect of chassis which has been returned to the other unit after body building. 11. The payment of Central Excise duty in respect of body built on chassis is covered by Serial No. 41 of the Notification No. 6/2006 dated 01/03/2006. The Notification provides for two options. In the first option where Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the chass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which has sent the chassis. Since both the units belong to M/s Commercial Engineers Body Building Company Pvt. Ltd., this is a classic case of revenue neutrality. In the case of M/s Jay Yushin Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi [2000 (119) ELT (Tri. LB)] the larger Bench held that the case of clearance of goods from one unit to another of the same company is one of Revenue Neutrality. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- i. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals) vs. Narayan Polyplast [2005 (179) ELT (SC)] ii. CCE Vadodara vs. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC)] 14. The differential duty raised in the course of audit objection has already been .....

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