TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with by the adjudicating authority. A change of guard in the office of the adjudicating Commissioner did not discharge the onus devolving on that authority to carry out the adjudication in conformity with the remand order. That the law must prevail could not have been unknown to departmental officers, that the statute does not contemplate collection of duty beyond the authority of law does not have to be stated and that convenience of presumption of non-payment of taxes is, surely, anathema to responsible tax administration is an article of faith not alienable by the State. There are no option other than to set aside the impugned orders. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it would be possible to establish the veracity of their claim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner being unwilling to carry that exercise to its logical conclusion. The second appeal impugns order [order-in-original no. PUN-EXCUS-004-COM-01/16-17 dated 6th May 2016] of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune IV for recovery of ₹ 78,67,077/- for the period from August 2014 to December 2014. A brief elaboration of facts and circumstances would be worthwhile to navigate the contours of the dispute. 2. The appellant, a manufacturer of automative tubes , has an exclusive conversion agreement with M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd, a manufacturer of automotive tyres , pursuant to which the products of their job working are cleared to the principal on payment of duties of central excise along with flaps procured by them that the latter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong with interest thereon, for the period of dispute. Thus it was that, for the period from December 2007 to November 2012, ₹ 11,65,29,065 and ₹ 10,10,80,372 for the two elements respectively (totalling ₹ 21,76,09,437), was proposed for recovery by show cause notice dated 10th March 2013. 4. Explaining the dichotomy in handling the discharge of differential duty liability, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the principal had availed credit, in accordance with CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, of duty paid by the appellant insofar as clearance of automotive tubes intended for the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) market. He submitted that, occasionally, upward revision of prices charged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority, was available with them. He also intimated that, at a time in the past, the facility of the appellant had been part and parcel of the operations of the principal and a dispute on the value of clearance, having arisen for 1997-98, carried to the Tribunal had the effect of devising the practice followed by them even after the activity was hived out to a separate jobworker entity. 6. The confirmation of demand in the said show cause notice by Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Pune-III [order-in-original no. PUN-EXCUS-003-COM-016-13-14 dated 30th September 2013] was appealed against and the Tribunal, taking note of the submissions made then and which is no different from the present submissions, ordered the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of removal of the goods, had indeed been passed on to the ultimate buyers by M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Since the period involved is 2006-07 to 2011-12 verification of the invoices for one quarter in a year would be sufficient so as to ascertain whether the appellant s claim in this regard is correct or not. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to lead evidence in respect of any quarter for each of the various financial years, for which duty demand has been raised, by way of submission of invoices so that the claim of the appellant that the trade discounts on which they have claimed deduction, had indeed been passed on to the ultimate buyers of the goods by M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd. From these data, to be furnished by the appellant, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the discount accorded to dealers in the replacement segment market by M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd in its entirety; while admitting that there may have been stray incidents of part of such discount not having been passed on, he contended that the portion that had, indeed, been passed on would have to be taken into consideration for determination of assessable value. 8. Learned Authorized Representative pointed out that the appellant had contractually undertaken to discharge duty liability on automotive tubes and failure to do so upon alteration of assessable value had been brought out in the impugned order. In the light of failure in the past to furnish the basis for the reconciliation certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
