Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-929-605-4013

Final Order No. A/880/2012-WZB/C-II(EB) arising from in Appeal No. E/2649/2004. Case: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs Commr. of C. Ex. & Cus., Nashik. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Case NumberFinal Order No. A/880/2012-WZB/C-II(EB) arising from in Appeal No. E/2649/2004
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri S. Dewalwar, Additional Commissioner (AR).
JudgesShri S.S. Kang, Vice-President and Sahab Singh, Member (T)
IssueCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Section 4
Citation2015 (321) ELT 513 (Tri. - Mumbai)
Judgement DateThursday August 30, 2012
CourtCEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Order:

S.S. Kang, Vice-President, (West Zonal Bench At Mumbai)

  1. Heard both sides.

  2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of duty has been confirmed and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is also imposed.

  3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles i.e. Jeep and motor vehicle''s parts falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants received a supply order in the present case from various Police departments of different States for supply of Bullet Proof Jeep. The appellants cleared base vehicle on payment of appropriate duty to the job-worker where the process of bullet-proofing was undertaken. From there the Bullet Proof Jeep was cleared to the Police department. The Revenue is demanding duty after adding the bullet-proofing charges to the assessable value of the Jeep on the ground that the order received for Bullet Proof Jeep and the appellants supplied the same. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the appellants'' own case i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. reported in 2010 (262) ELT 366 (Tri.-Mum.) = (2010-TIOL-29-CESTAT-MUM) where the demand was made in respect of Bullet Proof Jeep supplied to J&K Police. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. On an appeal filed by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand. The Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed.

  4. The contention is that as on the same issue in the appellants'' own case, the decision is in their favour, therefore, the present impugned order is not sustainable.

  5. The Revenue heavily relied upon the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s decision in the case of Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore - 2006 (193) ELT 6 (S.C.) to submit that as there is a value addition to the base vehicle, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay the duty after taking into consideration the cost of value of bullet-proofing. The Revenue also submitted that as the appellants received the order of Bullet Proof Jeep and supplied the vehicle as per the order, therefore, the duty is to be paid on the Bullet Proof Jeep and not on the base vehicle. It is also submitted that when the base vehicle is supplied to job-worker, the responsibility of supply of Bullet Proof Jeep to the police departments remained with M/s. Mahindra &amp...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT