TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties imposed on Tata Motors. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2241/2010-DB, E/649/2009-DB - Final Order Nos. 20560-20561/2019 - Dated:- 18-7-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Ms. Sandhya And Mr. Raghavendra, Advocates For the Appellants Mr. Rama Holla Mrs. Kavita Podwal, Superintendents (AR) For the Respondents ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellants have filed these two appeals directed against the impugned order dated 30.04.2009 and 31.05.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the cenvat credit of ₹ 17,25,662/- (Rupees Sevente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s factory, allowed certain ineligible discounts and also paid automobile cess which are not included in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of duty by the appellant as a job-worker. Further M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. has misdirected the invoice value by declaring it as transaction value. On these allegations a show-cause notice was issued and by following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand on the appellant and also imposed penalty of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) on Tata Motors Ltd. under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the Order-in-Original. 3. Heard both the parties and perused th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es imposed on Tata Motors. It is pertinent to reproduce the findings of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hyva India Ltd. which is recorded in paras 6 to 8: 6. According to us, the resolution of the dispute lies within the narrow compass of identification of the particular rule to be adopted for determination of the assessable value on clearance of the fully built vehicle by the appellant-assessee to M/s Tata Motors Ltd, the supplier of the inputs to appellant-assessee. It is not in dispute by either side that appellant-assessee is a job worker and the clearances are not at arm s length in the manner that clearances effected to their authorized dealers are. According to appellant-assessee, the adoption of the price at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for such presumption. The rules entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit [2000 (38) RLT 179]. would preclude any re-determination of the value at which goods were cleared by the principal to the job-worker. In the hands of the appellant assessee, the value cannot be anything other than a computation under rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 apparent from 20. The submissions do not cut any ice. What has to be seen is whether Bhilwara Processor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urned by job worker to the principal until March, 2007 when Rule 10A was inserted. It was for this reason, absence of any specific provision regarding valuation of goods cleared by job worker to the principal, that the question as to valuation remained in contention until the law finally came to be settled in Ujagar Prints-III. However, in fairness to the appellant, we do not wish to forclose the issue giving reference to Ujagar Print-III alone. We may make brief comments on the interpretation of Rule 11 which was subject of lengthy discussion at the time of hearing of these appeals. But before we do that, we may again clarify that while Rule 8 is generally applicable to non-sale transactions, it cannot be applied at the stage of clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the finished goods to the depots of the principal manufacturer after discharge of duty liability by the job-worker and final clearance thereafter. Till the delivery of the goods to the ultimate buyer of built-up vehicles , the valuation for the purpose of determination of duties of central excise is the cost of manufacture. The price at which goods are cleared by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. to their authorized dealers includes, other than the cost of manufacture, the cost of transportation and the profit component. The adoption of this price for determining the duty liability in the hands of the principal manufacturer is not in any way prejudicial to Revenue and, therefore, cannot be a cause of grievance to the tax authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
