Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
S vs Shri M. Rammohan Rao, Dc (Ar) on 1 December, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI S. No. Appeal No. Appellant Respon dent Arising out of OIO/dt. passed by Commr. LTU Chennai Arising out of OIA/dt. passed by CCE (A) Chennai and Commr(A), C.Ex & ST, LTU Chennai 1. E/MISC/235/ 2013 & E/1265/2004 Hyundai Motor India Ltd. CCE & ST LTU Chennai ---
OIA No.41/04 (M-IV) dt. 28.7.2004
2. E/487/2011
-do-
-do-
LTUC/260-262/2011 (C)dt. 4.8.2011
---
3. E/488/2011
-do-
-do-
-do-
---
4. E/489/2011
-do-
-do-
-do-
---
5. E/MISC/42440/ 2013 & E/473/2012
-do-
-do-
LTUC/280/ 2012-C dt. 31.8.2012
---
6. E/MISC/234/2013 & E/1312/2004 CCE &ST LTU Chennai Hyundai Motor India Ltd.
---
OIA No.41/04 (M-IV) dt. 28.7.2004
7. E/398/2009
-do-
-do-
---
OIA No.64/2008 (M-IV) DT 30.3.2009
8. E/399/2009
-do-
-do-
---
OIA No.59/2008 M(IV) dt. 30.3.2009
9. E/44/2010
-do-
-do-
---
OIA No. 59/2009 dt. 3.11.2009
10. E/45/2010
-do-
-do-
---
OIA No. 60/2009 dt. 3.11.2009 Appearance:
Shri S. Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate For the Appellant Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Honble Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Date of final hearing : 1.6.2015 Date of Pronouncement :1.12.2015 FINAL ORDER No.41614-41623/2015 Per R. Periasami Of a total of ten appeals, five are assessees appeals and the remaining five are departments appeals. All of them are taken up together as the issues are in common. Appeal Nos. E/1265/2004, E/487 to 489/ 2011 and E/473/2012 are appeals filed by M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (HMIL, for short) and Appeal Nos. E/1312/ 2004, E/398, 399/2009 and E/44 & 45/2010 are appeals filed by the Revenue.
2. In these batch of appeals, there are two MISC petitions filed by assessee and one filed by Revenue. MISC Application No.E/MISC/235/2013 in Appeal E/1265/2004 is filed by assessee for taking into account the additional grounds. The same is allowed. The other application E/MISC/42440/2013 in E/473/2012 is filed by assessee for granting extension of stay. As the appeal itself is being disposed, the MA is disposed.
3. E/MISC/234/2013 in E/1312/2004 is filed by Revenue for change of cause title so as to change the appellants name from Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV to "Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Chennai" as the assessee is falling under the jurisdiction of LTU, Chennai. Accordingly MA No.E/MISC/234/2013 is allowed.
4. Now, we proceed to take up the appeals. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd (hereinafter referred to as HMIL) are manufacturers of motor vehicles (passenger cars) falling under Chapter Heading 8703 and commenced commercial production from Sept'1998 onwards. The assessees cleared the cars to their dealers as well as through their depot located across the country. Since the assessees were not able to determine the actual price on various cost details and other charges, discounts were yet to be finalised, they requested the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise for provisional assessment on all the clearances vide letter dt. 17.7.98 and 31.5.99 and the same was ordered on 2.6.99 and necessary Bond and Bank Guarantee were executed. On receipt of the details from the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Poonamalee Division finalized the provisional assessment for the year 1998-99 and 1999-00 vide his first OIO No.88/2003 dt. 12.12.2003. The adjudicating authority had finalized total of "75" issues. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority finalized the provisional assessments periodically covering the period upto September 2011, and issued orders. The main issues which are relevant to these appeals are as under :-
1. Non-inclusion of cost of Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) and After Sales Service (ASS) in the assessable value and consequent short payment of duty.
2. Non-inclusion of overriding commission paid to dealers on sale to canteen store-department (CSD)
3. Demo Cars
4. Cost of display kits collected from dealer through debit note
5. Recovery of incentive trip cost from dealers
6. Non-inclusion of profit margin at HMP
7. Incorrect availment of Cenvat credit on fabricated paint shop structural
5. The details of demands and dispute for each appeal wise are as under :
E/1265 (filed by HMIL) & 1312/2014 (filed by Revenue):
6. In these appeals, the adjudicating authority finalized the provisional assessment and determined the differential duty of Rs.35,49,57,756/- and also appropriated an amount of Rs.2,13,08,449/-. Against this order, both Revenue and appellant filed appeals. Assessee filed against the rejection of value of Demo Cars and inclusion of Overriding Commission on clearance of cars to Canteen Stores Department (CSD). Revenue filed appeal against Pre-Delivery Inspection Charges/After Sales Service Charges (PDI/ASS) and non-inclusion of profit margin at Hyundai Motor plaza (HMP).
E/398 & 399/2009 (filed by Revenue)
7. The Adjudicating authority finalized the provisional assessment for the subsequent periods vide OIO No.32/2007 dt. 30.11.2007 and OIO No.2/2007 dt. 16.3.2007. Against these two orders, vide Order-in Appeals No.64/2008 (M_IV) dated 30.03.2009 and OIA No. 59/2008 M(IV) dt. 30.3.2009, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeals. Hence, Revenue filed appeal E/398/09 against OIA No.64/2008 dt. 30.3.2009 and appeal E/399/2009 against OIA No.59/2008 dt. 30.3.2009. These two appeals are filed by Revenue against dropping of demand in the issues referred at para-4 above.
E/44/2010 & E/45/2010 (by Revenue)
8. These two appeals are filed by Revenue against OIA No.59/2009 and OIA No.60/2009 both dt. 3.11.2009 respectively on the identical issue as at para-4 above wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has partly allowed the appeal and the Revenue preferred appeals against demand on five issues viz. (i) valuation on demo cars, (ii) PDI/ASS charges (iii) overriding commission on CSD (iv) cost of delivery kits (v) incentive trip recovered from dealers except the other two issues ie. cenvat credit on structurals used on fabricated paint complex and non-inclusion of profit margin at HMP.
E/487 to 489/2011 & E/473/2012 (filed by HMIL)
9. Appeal Nos. E/487 to 489/2011 are filed by the assessee against OIO No.LTUC/260-262/2011 (C) dt. 4.8.2011 passed by Commissioner, LTU Chennai. Appeal No.E/473/2012 is filed by assessee against OIO No. LTUC/280/2012-C dt. 31.8.2012. All these four appeals are filed by assessee M/s.HMIL against confirmation of demand on Pre-Delivery Inspection Charges for the subsequent periods.
10. Heard both sides. The Ld. Advocate, Shri S. Muthuvenkatraman for HMIL and Ld. A.R, Shri M. Rammohan Rao, JC for Revenue submitted written synopsis and reiterated the same. The submissions of both sides on issue wise are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 1Non-inclusion of cost of Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) and After Sales Service (ASS) in the assessable value and consequent short payment of duty.
CONTENTION BY M/S HMIL:
PRE-DELIVERY INSPECTION & FREE AFTER SALES SERVICE:
11. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant cleared the cars to the dealers on outright sale. Prior to the sale of cars, the inspection taken place and he submits that cost of the charges incorporated towards this particular delivery inspection is already included in the transaction value. He further submits that as per their agreement with various dealers after sales service is carried out by the dealers. Therefore, the entire cost of the pre-delivery inspection is considered as post manufacturing activity and not includible in the assessable value as there is no flow back. PDI is a mandatory requirement where the dealer checks the quality before taking the delivery. Since all the transactions i.e., both the appellant and the dealer, are on principal to principal basis, therefore, the cost of PDI and After Sales Service, does not form part of the transaction value. He also submits that even after amendment of Section 4 of Central Excise Act w.e.f. 1.7.2000, there is no change, the position remains the same. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws:
11.1 During the period prior to 1.7.2000, this issue is settled by the following rulings:
a) 2001(132)ELT 67 (T) in the case of General Motors India Ltd. Vs CCE
b) M/s Mahindra & Mahindra 1998 (103) ELT 606 (T) maintained in 1999 (111) ELT A126 (SC) 11.2 During post 1.7.2000, the issue is covered by the judgment in the following cases.
a) Tata Motors Ltd Vs Union of India 2012 (286) ELT 161 (Bom). Para 45 to 49
b) CCE, Chandigarh Vs Punjab Tractors Ltd 2013 TIOL 28 CESTAT, Delhi
c) CCE & Cus, Aurangabad Vs Bajaj Auto Ltd 2014 (300) ELT 434 (Tri-Mumbai)
d) Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST, Bangalore-LTU 2014 (306) ELT 504 (Tri-Bang) CONTENTION BY REVENUE
12. The Ld. A.R had filed a written submission dated 21.5.2015 and placed heavy reliance on the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Maruthi Suzuki India Limited vs CCE, Delhi-III - 2012 (257) ELT 226(Tri-LB) and also relied the following case laws :-
a) Union of India and Others Vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd 1984 (14) ELT 1896 (SC)
b) CCE, Mumbai Vs Fiat India Private Ltd 2012TIOL58 SCCX = 2012 (283) ELT 161 (SC) 12.1. The Learned authorized representative (AR) submitted that the reliance placed on the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Tata Motors is incorrect for the reason that the Bombay High Court was specific to the facts of that case and the assessee therein and Bombay High Courts decision had been challenged by the Revenue and is pending before the Honble Supreme Court. Reference is SLP (Civil) 3501 of 2013 which is converted to a Civil Appeal No.2204 of 2013 and this appeal is connected to Civil Appeal No.3768 and 3769 of 2011 in the case of M/s Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.
12.2. The learned AR further placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd 2004TIOL14SCLMTLB to substantiate the point that once an appeal is filed before the Supreme Court and the same is entertained, the judgment of the High Court or the Tribunal is in jeopardy. It was further contended that the issue ought to be decided without taking cognizance of the Bombay High Court judgment as a Civil Appeal on that issue is pending before the Honble Supreme Court. Further, it was admitted that the decision is not with reference to any question of law (not being framed thereunder), that the Honble High Court has not laid down any ratio to be followed as the said decision was not with reference to any adjudication.
ISSUE NO. 2Non-inclusion of overriding commission paid to dealers on sale to canteen store-department CONTENTION OF HMIL
13. The Ld. Counsel submits that they have cleared the cars to Defence personnel through Canteen Stores Department (CSD) and these cars were directly sold by the assessee and not cleared through dealers. He further submits that the amount paid to the dealers is only to take care of after sales service of the cars directly sold to Defence persons. An amount of Rs.2,000/- is paid to the dealers to take care of the after sales service. He further submits in the sale of cars to CSD was direct to the customer but a dealer normally earns a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards margin. He also submits that this amounts to post sale activity. The cars cleared to CSD are as per transaction value.
CONTENTION OF REVENUE
14. The submissions made by M/s HMIL are incorrect. The claims of M/s HMIL are found to be not in consonance with the dealership agreement entered into by them. Dealer shall provide service to Hyundai Cars, supplied by any one dealer. Servicing Dealer alone shall provide service to the exclusion of selling dealer. The amount given represents not a discount but only a commission and hence includable in the assessable value.
ISSUE NO. 3DEMO CARS CONTENTIONS OF HMIL
15. On the issue of Demo Cars, the learned counsel submits that the appellant sells the car through their dealer network and out of the cars that were sold certain cars are retained by the dealer for display to serve as a demo car, which is used by the customer before purchasing cars. Subsequently, the these cars are sold to any buyer as per the transaction value on principal to principal basis. He also submits that after 01.07.2000, each removal should be treated as an independent price. Therefore, the demo cars, though the price is discounted the same is reimbursed to the dealer. The department enhanced the value at par with the normal cars as per the Boards Circular dated 01.04.2003, which is not justified. He also submits that in certain cases, the sale price of the demo cars is higher than the normal cars, which was recorded in appeal nos.E/398,399/2009. He also submits that subsequent sale of demo car cannot be equated with sale of normal cars.
CONTENTION OF REVENUE
16. The A.R. submits that the discounts vary between 15% and 20%. Reliance was placed on Boards clarification contained in F.No. 6/40/2002 CX-1 dated 1.4.2003 and submits that the issue is already decided by this Tribunal in the case of Royal Enfield Vs CCE Chennai reported in 2012 (280) ELT 92 (Tri-Chennai) and two judgments in the case of Ford India Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai reported in (i) 2010-TIOL-329-CESTAT-MAD and (ii) 2014 (302) ELT 257 (Tri-Chennai). Further, he submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by the assessee in the case of Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner - 2015 (318) ELT A39 (SC) on account of delay. Ld. AR submits that rejection of transaction value and demand of differential duty on Demo cars by adjudicating authority is to be upheld.
ISSUES NO. 4 & 5Cost of Display Kits collected from dealer through debit note and recovery of Incentive Trip Cost recovered from dealers:
CONTENTION OF HMIL
17. Learned Advocate submits they have appointed dealers throughout the country. In order to have uniform and common advertisement materials, they procured the advertisement materials and display kits from a single source and are distributed to their dealers. They have recovered the amount spent on advertisement material from the dealers separately and this cannot form part of the transaction value. In an automobile industry, it is the common practice to have uniform display materials and display kits. Similarly, for incentive paid, he submits that the cost of incentive trip of the dealers form part of cash price. The amount collected from the dealer is only for the additional person accompanying the trip, this cannot be added to transaction value of the car. Merely by recovering the additional amount in the form of debit note cannot be construed as selling and marketing expenses or towards sales promotion activities by the appellant as it is only a selling activity. He relied on the following decision in the case of Kinetic Engg. Ltd and two others vs CCE, Pune-II reported in 2007-TIOL-723-CESTAT-MUM.
CONTENTION BY REVENUE
18. Ld. AR reiterated the grounds of appeal and further stated that it is an activity influencing the product in the market. The revenue places reliance on the Board Circular dated 1.7.2002.
ISSUE NO. 6Non-inclusion of profit margin at HMP:
CONTENTION OF HMIL
19. Learned counsel submits that they have set up exclusive showrooms (plazas) of HMP. The same is owned by their dealers. Various schemes are announced depending upon the season, festival and market condition and the discount given to the dealers through credit note relates to the subsidy paid under cash exchange scheme, irrespective of the model and make. This does not form part of the transaction value as it is only a post sale activity, whereas, the department included in the price of cars. He relied on the following decisions in the case of Mahavir Spinning Mills Vs CCE, Jalandar reported in 2007 (207) ELT 94 (Tri-Del) which was upheld by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Commissioner Vs Mahavir Spinning Mills reported in 2007(212) ELT A152 (SC). He also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India Vs CCE, Raipur reported in 2006(199) ELT 112(Tri-Del).
CONTENTION OF REVENUE
20. The leaned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal and placed reliance on the findings given by the adjudicating authority to the effect that discount passed on through credit notes were relating to subsidy paid under Car Exchange Scheme, irrespective of Model and Make and subsidy of interest for the loan given to the customer.
ISSUE NO. 7Incorrect availment of Cenvat credit on fabricated paint shop structural:
CONTENTION OF HMIL
21. The Ld. counsel submits that the Adjudicating authority denied the credit on the structurals, pre-fabricated buildings used in their paint shop. These are nothing but accessories of capital goods. The appellate authority allowed the credit and he reiterated the findings of LAA. He submits that all the structurals and accessories are classifiable under 82, 84, 85 and 90 and they qualify as parts and accessories of capital goods. He relied on the following decisions:-
a) CCE, Bangalore Vs SLR Steels Ltd reported in 2012 (280) ELT 176 (Kar).
b) Final order No.40890/2014 dated 16.9.2014 passed by this Tribunal Bench in the case of Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd vs CCE following the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Mysore Vs ICL Sugars Ltd reported in 2011 (271) ELT 360(Kar.), CCE Bangalore Vs SLR Steels Ltd. decision referred to supra.
c) CCE, Belgaum Vs Hindalco Industries reported in 2012(286) ELT 503 (Kar).
d) CCE, Chennai-III Vs Motherson Automotive Technologies Engg. Ltd. - 2008 (227) E.L.T.102 (Tri.-Chennai).
e) Bombay High Court judgment in the Bharti Airtel reported in 2014 TIOL 1452-HC MUM-ST has been negatived by the Tribunal in Dalmia Cement case referred to supra.
CONTENTION BY REVENUE
22. The A.R reiterated the grounds of appeal of Revenue and Revenue placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Engineering & Indus.Ltd. Vs CCE reported in 2000 (120) ELT 273 (SC) and the Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri-LB).
23. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides on all the issues and examined the relevant records. We find that the period involved in the present appeals relates to 1998 to 2011. The appellant-assessee is a manufacturer of passenger cars who opted for provisional assessment and while finalizing the provisional assessment, the adjudicating authority in his series of orders included the costs on various issues as discussed at para-4 of this order and correspondingly confirmed the demands also for various periods.
24. We find that against the first final assessment order dt. 12.12.2003, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the assessee preferred appeal (E/1265/04) only on two issues i.e. against rejection of transaction value on demo cars and inclusion of overriding commission paid to dealers on CSD sales. The Revenue preferred appeal (E/1312/2004) against said OIA in respect of setting aside the adjudication order on inclusion of PDI charges/ASS charges and inclusion of profit margin at HMP plaza. For the subsequent periods, we find that the four Revenue appeals filed against 4 LAA orders by and large cover on all the 7 issues referred at para-4 above. Further, we find that the subsequent years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Commissioner, LTU Chennai adjudicated the case and confirmed the demand including charges of PDI/ASS and also imposed penalty and the assessee preferred appeal. We also find that the period of dispute starts from 1998 to Sept 2011 and covers both pre-amended and post-amended Section 4 (w.e.f. 1.7.2000). We propose to discuss the issues as under :
25. Issue - PDI/ASS charges.
We find that the adjudicating authority has included the cost of Pre-Delivery Inspection charges and After Sales Services charges while finalizing the provisional assessment and the LAA had set aside the inclusion of PDI/ASS charges. On perusal of the OIAs, we find that lower appellate authority had discussed the issue in detail and relied case laws pertaining to pre-amendment period prior to 1.7.2000 and post-amendment of Section 4. We find that Revenue in their grounds of appeal, mainly contended and relied the Boards circular No.643/34/2002-CX dt. 1.7.2002 and Circular No.681/72/2002-CX dt. 12.12.2002. Further, the jurisdictional Commissioner, LTU also issued SCN and confirmed the demands on PDI in his orders for the period 2008-09, 2009-10. Whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) in his two orders for the earlier period has set aside the DC's orders relating to the demand on PDI/ASS charges by relying on various Tribunals decision in the case of Maruti Udyog, Yamaha Motors, Majestic Auto Works. Revenue contended that the LB decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2010 (257) ELT 226 (Tri.-LB) is applicable. It was also contended by Revenue that even though appeal is admitted by the Honble Supreme Court against the Tribunals LB decision in Maruti Suzuki India (supra), there is no stay granted by the Supreme Court and therefore, the Larger Bench decision is binding. It is pertinent to state that in the HMIL case this issue started since 1998 onwards and over the years, there were several Tribunal rulings on this issue which led to the LB decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India. In this regard, we find that subsequent to the Tribunal's LB decision, the Honble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs UOI 2012 (286) ELT 161 (Bom.) held PDI charges not includible and quashed the above two Board's circulars dt. 1.7.2012 and 12.12.2002. The Honble Bombay High Court has discussed the issue of PDI charges and ASS charges at length within the scope of Section 4 and also taken into consideration the said LB decision of Maruti Suzuki India (supra) and held that Boards circular referred to above are not inconformity with provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act. The relevant paragraphs of the Honble Bombay High Court decision (supra) are reproduced as under:-
"4.?Few facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as under. The petitioners manufacture Indica/Indigo cars at Pimpari works. These cars are sold to customers through a countrywide network of dealers. From August, 2008 onwards the petitioners sold the said cars to their subsidiary company M/s. TML Distribution Company Ltd. (For short M/s. TMLD) who in turn sell the vehicles to dealers. The petitioners have already disclosed that M/s. TMLD is related person and have paid excise duty not on the basis of petitioners sale price to M/s. TMLD but on the basis of price of M/s. TMLD to the dealers. The petitioners have thus paid duty on normal transaction value i.e. the price at which aggregate quantity of the cars is sold by M/s. TMLD to dealers. The petitioners claim that there is no dispute between the parties that the petitioners have correctly paid Excise duty on this basis. The petitioners have appointed various persons as dealers who sell the cars in turn to their customers.
... ... ....
35.?The amendment to Section 4 of said Act came into effect on 1st July, 2000. The respondents thereafter issued Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX., dated 1st July, 2002. In Clause No. 7 the respondents clarified its stand about the cost of PDI and said services incurred by the dealer during the warranty period. The relevant portion of the Circular is as under :
Clarifications on points of doubt under the New Valuation provisions introduced w.e.f. 1-7-2000.
Sr. No. Point of doubt Clarification 7 What about the cost of after sales service charges and pre-delivery inspection (PDI and free after sales services) charges, incurred by the dealer during the warranty period?
Since these services are provided free by the dealer on behalf of the assessee, the cost towards this is included in the dealers margin (or reimbursed to him). This is one of the considerations for sale of the goods (motor vehicles, consumer items etc.) to the dealer and will therefore be governed by Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules on the same grounds as indicated in respect of Advertisement and publicity charges. That is, in such cases the after sales service charges and PDI and free after sales services charges will be included in the assessable value.
36.?It is to be noted that the respondents also issued another Circular Bearing No. 681/72/2002-CX., dated 12th December, 2002 thereby withdrawing earlier Circular No. 355/71/97-CX., dated 19th November, 1997 and subsequent Circular No. 435/1/99-CX., dated 12th January, 1999 and further directed that the withdrawal of these two Circulars will apply to past cases only, as the provisions of new Section 4 introduced w.e.f. 1st July, 2000 were not the subject matter of dispute before the Apex Court. This would mean that by this Circular dated 12th December, 2002 the earlier Circular dated 1st July, 2002 was confirmed and directions were issued to the department to carry out assessment accordingly.
... ... ...
41.?In our view, the only question which fell for consideration of this Court was whether Clause 7 of Circular dated 1st July, 2002 is in excess of the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) and 4(3)(d) of said Act as amended by Section 94 of the Finance Act of 2000. In our view, the answer to this question will decide the issues as between the petitioners and the respondents. In our view, it is not necessary for us to record our views on the correctness of the judgment delivered by the Larger Bench in the case of Maruti Suzuki (supra). Similarly, in our view, it is not necessary to express any view on the order-in-original dated 5th December, 2011.
42.?We have considered the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) as amended as well as the provisions of Section 4 as they stood prior to the amendment which came into effect from 1st July, 2000. We are in agreement with the submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sridharan that the provisions of Section 4 as amended are not materially different from the provisions of Section 4 as were prevailing prior to 1st July, 2000. By the amendment, a new term has been introduced by name transaction value and the said term transaction value has been specifically defined in Section 4(3)(d) of the said Act. The present Section 4(1)(a) r/w definition of term transaction value gives more clarity and all doubts as to how the assessable value is to be arrived at are removed. It is also noted that the various items incorporated in the term transaction value as defined in Section 4(3)(d) of said Act as forming part of value of Excisable goods are in fact the expenses/deductions specifically disallowed by the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.). If one closely observes the definition of the term transaction value, it uses the terminology servicing. It appears that the respondents are taking the benefit of this term servicing for the purpose of adding to the assessable value, the expenses incurred by the dealer towards PDI and free said services by resorting to Clause 7 of Circular dated 1st July, 2002 and Circular dated 12th December, 2002.
43.?Turning to point in question, it is noticed that the definition of the transaction value in Section 4(3)(d) of the said Act is extensive and ropes in the price of the goods and other amounts charged by the assessee by the reason of sale or in connection with sale. A close reading of Section 4(3)(d) of the said Act would indicate that the term transaction value comprises of price actually paid or payable by the buyer and includes additional amount that the buyer is liable to pay or on behalf of the assessee by reason of sale or in connection of sale whether payable at the time of sale or at any other time including the amount charged for or to make provision for certain items such as advertising etc. One such item is servicing. In view of the definition of the term transaction value, it would be necessary for this Court to apply the definition of the term transaction value to the facts of this case and decide the matter. It is admitted by the petitioners that after a car is sold to a dealer on the terms and conditions entered into mentioned in the dealers agreement, a dealer is required to carry out Pre Delivery Inspection as well as said services in regard to a car which is sold to a customer. From the record it is seen that a dealer is required to pay an amount to the petitioners towards the cost of the car and a dealer cannot charge more than the amount specified by the petitioners. The difference between the price so fixed by the petitioners and the price paid by the dealer constitutes what is called as dealers margin. A dealer has to spend money to conduct PDI as well as render said services. We are inclined to accept the stand of the petitioners that the dealer is required to perform PDI as well as said services as a part of the dealers responsibility cast on him as per the dealership agreement. The contention of the petitioners that the petitioners do not charge the dealer for the expenses incurred by the dealer towards PDI and said services is required to be accepted. From the record it is clear that the case of the petitioners so far as the amount incurred by the dealer towards PDI and said services does not form any of the clauses viz. (a) Any amount charged for (b) Amount charged to make provision for (c) Any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to the assessee (d) Any amount that the buyer is liable to pay on behalf of the assessee. The record indicates that once a car is sold by the petitioners to the dealer at a price, the dealer is not required to pay any further amount to the petitioners on account of PDI and free after sales services/after sales services. It is clear that when the petitioners are selling the car to a dealer, price is the sole consideration and the petitioners and the dealer are not related to each other. Having complied with these requirements set out in Section 4(1)(a) of the said Act, the assessable value of the cars will have to be treated as the one which will be the transaction value. The transaction value will have to be arrived at by taking into consideration the definition of the term transaction value appearing in Section 4(3)(d) of the said Act. The record clearly goes to show that apart from the price which is paid by the dealer to the petitioners, no amount is recovered by the petitioners from the dealer or the customer. As such, the stand of the respondents that the expenses incurred towards PDI as well as said services have to be included in the assessable value cannot be accepted. This is being observed on the ground that there is no material to show that the expenses for the pre-delivery inspection as well as after sales services are paid by the dealer to the petitioners. The dealer renders PDI and said services as a routine and legitimate activity as a dealer. It is also clear from the record and on the basis of the typical dealership agreement entered into with the dealer by the petitioners that a dealer renders PDI as well as said services on account of dealership. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have in affidavit in reply dated 29th June, 2012 admitted that the dealer carries out free PDI and after sales services at their end. It is admitted that labour cost towards PDI and said services is borne out of retailing profit. The contention of the respondents that the expenses incurred for PDI and said services must be included in the transaction value and is required to be included in the assessable value of the car is required to be negatived on the ground that the petitioners do not charge the dealer any amount equivalent to the cost incurred towards PDI and free after sales services.
44.?It has been the contention of the respondents that the petitioners provide warranty in regard to the car which is sold by the dealer to the customer. According to the respondents the customer can avail of the benefit of this warranty, provided PDI is carried out in respect of the car and the customer avails of the benefit of said services. According to the respondents the warranty given by the petitioners is linked with expenses incurred towards PDI and said services and that is how the expenses incurred for PDI and said services become a part of the transaction value. We are not inclined to accept this contention. It is true that the Owners Manual specifically indicates that if the PDI and said services are not availed of, then the customer would not be able to claim the benefit of the warranty. This will go to show that the petitioners undertake responsibilities so far as the warranty aspect is concerned provided the customer takes the benefit of PDI and said services. It has no bearing on the assessable value as it is abundantly clear that to perform PDI as well as render said services is on the dealers obligation on account of dealership agreement and not on any other count. Once it is held that the PDI and said services are not provided by the dealer on behalf of the petitioners, it cannot be treated as consideration for sale. It also cannot be treated as a deferred consideration. The respondents while issuing Circular dated 1st July, 2002 have wrongly referred to the Rule 6 of the said Rules and have wrongly linked the expenses incurred for PDI and said services with expenses for advertisement or publicity. It is required to be noted that the provisions of the said Rules will not be applicable to the facts of this case as the transaction between the petitioners and the dealer does not fall within the ambit of Section 4(1)(b) of the said Act. The transaction of sale of a car between the petitioners and the dealer is governed by the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of said Act as the petitioners as assessee and the dealer as a buyer of the car are not related to each other and price is the sole consideration for the sale. In our view, reference to the Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules in Clause 7 of Circular dated 1st July, 2002 is totally misconceived. The reference made by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sridharan to the case of Mr. A.K. Roy and Anr. v. Voltas Ltd. reported in 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J177) (S.C.) is apt. We have perused the said judgment and applying the said judgment to the facts of the present case, the respondents would be able to demand Excise duty on the amount which is charged by the petitioners to the dealer. It is to be noted that as per the record, once the car is sold by the petitioners to the dealer for a particular consideration, no other amount is payable by the dealer to the petitioners. It is required to be mentioned that the petitioners are not reimbursing any amount to the dealer towards expenses incurred for the PDI and said services and the petitioners are paying Excise duty on the entire amount for which the petitioners sale the car to the dealer. In the present case, even if it is taken that the petitioners are giving trade discount to the dealer, the petitioners are paying the Excise amount on the whole amount and not the amount which is arrived at after giving the trade discount. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sridharans submission in terms of judgment in the case of Atic Industries Ltd. v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Controller of Central Excise and Ors. reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J444) (S.C.) that the price which is relevant for the purpose of Excise duty was the price when the goods first entered in the stream of trade is required to be accepted. In the present case, when the petitioners sell the car to the dealer, the goods enter the stream of trade for the first time and, therefore, the amount at which the car is sold to the dealer would be the assessable value on which the Excise duty would be payable. In the present case, the expenses incurred by the dealer for PDI and said services has nothing to do with the term servicing mentioned in the transaction value and as such, the said expenses cannot be added to assessable value.
45.?On consideration of the Clause 7 of Circular dated 1st July, 2000, it is apparent that the respondents have brought into existence a deeming provision that is to say the respondents have treated all the manufacturers of cars on one platform and by fiction taken a decision to add the expenses incurred towards PDI and said services in the assessable value. It will have to be mentioned that in all cases where the expenses incurred towards PDI and said services are solely borne by the dealer and the manufacturer like petitioners have nothing to do with the said expenses then adding those expenses in the assessable value would be contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) r/w Section 4(3)(d) of the said Act. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents have not been able to place on record any material to show that the amount incurred towards PDI and said services can fall within the definition of the transaction value.
46.?We have noted that after the amendment to Section 4 of the said Act in the year 2000, pursuant to Section 94 of the Finance Act, 2000, the respondents issued Circular No. F.B-10/1/2000-TRU, dated 12th May, 2000 as also Circular letter F. No. 354/81/2000/TRU dated 30th June, 2000. A reading of these two Circulars would clearly go to show that the respondents wanted to clarify the term transaction value and these two Circulars were to be used as guidelines while arriving at the assessable value. Considering these Circulars, we are inclined to accept the submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sridharan that the expenses incurred towards PDI and said services cannot be included in the assessable value. It is peculiar to note that after issuing Circular dated 1st July, 2002, the respondents issued Circular dated 12th December, 2002 and in the said Circular, the respondents clearly admitted that the expenses incurred towards Pre-Delivery Inspection and free after sales services provided by the dealer to a vehicle during the warranty period will not be included in the assessable value. Paragraph 4 of the Circular dated 12th December, 2002 reads as under.
In view of the above facts Board withdraws the Circular No. 355/71/97 CX., dated 19th November, 1997 and subsequent Circular No. 435/1/99 CX., dated 12th January, 1999 referred to above. In other words, PDI (Pre-Delivery Inspection) and free after sales services provided by the dealer of the vehicle, during the warranty period will not be included in the assessable value.
47.?This assertion viz. Expenses for the PDI and said services is not to be included in the assessable value is at variance from Circular dated 1st July, 2002. The Clause 7 of Circular dated 1st July, 2002, in our view wrongly proceeds to hold that the expenses incurred by the dealer towards PDI and said services are on behalf of the assessee hence, it is wrong to say that such expenses form as one of the considerations for the sale of goods. In our view, equating the expenses incurred towards PDI and said services with the advertisement and publicity charges is incorrect. In our view. Clause No. 7 of Circular dated 1st July, 2002 is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) r/w Section 4(3)(d) of the said Act.
48.?The matter can be looked from yet another angle namely; a perusal of the term transaction value would show that servicing is one item, which is included in the definition of the term transaction value. In our view, on the basis of record it is clear that the petitioners do not render any services to the dealer and no cost is incurred by the petitioners qua the dealer towards the term servicing. As such, the petitioners have not included any amount in the assessable value with reference to term servicing and as such the expenses incurred towards PDI and said services, which expenses are incurred solely by the dealer without reference to the petitioners cannot be included in the term servicing appearing in the term transaction value. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid if a dealer incurs expenses towards the PDI as well as free after sales services without reference to the manufacturer like petitioners, then, the said expenses incurred by the dealer cannot form a part and parcel of the assessable value. To that extent, Clause 7 of the Circular dated 1st July, 2002 is illegal and void and is contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) r/w Section 4(3)(d) of the said Act. Similarly, the Circular dated 12th December, 2002 to the extent it confirms Clause 7 of Circular dated 1st July, 2002 is void and illegal.
49.?For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that as per Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the PDI and free after sales services charges can be included in the transaction value only when they are charged by the assessee to the buyer. The impugned circulars, inter alia, purport to hold that where the assessee sells the motor vehicles to a dealer (buyer) at a given price and the dealer in turn sells the said motor vehicles to a customer at a price with dealers margin which includes the PDI charges and after sales service charges, then, the assessable value for determining the Central Excise duty payable by the assessee has to be determined by including the PDI and after sales service charges even if they are not been charged by the assessee to the dealer, which in our opinion is contrary to the provisions of Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and, hence, liable to be quashed and set aside. Whether the adjudicating authority in the present case is justified in including the PDI and after sales service charges is a question to be decided in the appeal, if any, filed against the order-in-original."
The ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable to the present case as in this case, Revenue has filed the present appeals on the inclusion of PDI/ASS charges solely on the basis of said Boards circulars dt. 1.7.2002 and 12.12.2002. Since the Honble Bombay High Court has quashed the said circulars, the revenue's plea for inclusion of PDI and ASS charges is not justified and beyond the scope of law. Further, we find that the co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal at Mumbai, Delhi and Bangalore on identical issue of PDI pertaining to other Automobile companies followed the Hon'ble High Court order and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee and rejected Revenue's appeals in the following cases :-
(i) Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST Bangalore 2014 (306) ELT 504 (Tri.-Bang.)
(ii) CCE & Cus Aurangabad Vs Bajaj Auto Ltd.
2014 (300) ELT 434 (Tri.-Mumbai)
(iii) CCE Chandigarh Vs Punjab Tractors Ltd.
2013-TIOL-28-CESTAT-Del.
The ratio of the Honble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs UOI (supra) and the Tribunals decisions (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as the appellant is a manufacturer of cars and the PDI is mandatory before sale of cars to ultimate customers. The revenue's contention that the Department's appeal filed against the said Bombay High Court order is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a reason that the High Court order should not be followed. The very fact that co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the above decisions have decided the PDI issue by following the ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court order confirms our view that the ratio of High Court decision is applicable. Therefore, the Revenue relying on the LB decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki case is not relevant in view of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay's judgement. By respectfully following the Hon'ble High Court order above and Tribunal decisions, we hold that PDI/ASS charges are not includible in the transaction value of cars cleared by the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the Commissioner (Appeals) orders to the extent of non-inclusion of PDI charges/ASS charges. Consequently, we set aside orders passed by Commissioner, LTU confirming the demand on PDI and also set aside the penalties and allow the assessee's appeals.
26. Issues on (1) Overriding Commission on CSD (2) Non-inclusion of profit margin at HMP (3) Cost of Display Kits and (4) Incentive Trips recovered from the dealers.
We find that the adjudicating authority included these charges in determining the transaction value whereas the LAA set aside the order and allowed the assessees appeals. We have examined the revenue's contentions and perused various impugned orders of LAA from 2003 to 2008 and noticed that the LAA has dealt the issue in detail and relied Tribunal's decisions.
26.1 As regards the inclusion of overriding commission paid to dealers on the sale of cars to Defence personnel through Canteen Stores Department (CSD), we find the cars were directly sold by the assessee to the CSD and not through the dealers. LAA clearly brought out that the amount which was paid to dealers is nothing but towards payment for providing after sales services of the cars sold to the Defence personnel directly. Revenues plea is that it is a commission paid to be included as per Section 4 is not justified. Accordingly, the LAA order on this account is liable to be upheld.
26.2 As regards non-inclusion of Display Kits and Recovery of Incentive Trips from the dealers, we find that both the transactions are related to post-sale transactions. Therefore, any recovery from the dealer on account of cost of display kits or recovery of expenses for the incentive trips does not form part of the assessable value. The LAA has discussed the issue in detail and also relied Tribunals decision in the case of Kinetic Engg. Ltd. Vs CCE Pune-II 2007-TIOL-723-CESTAT-Mum. The following Tribunals decisions also held in favour of assessee:-
(i) Raymond Ltd. Vs CCE - 2008-TIOL-410-CESTAT-Mum.)
(ii) CCE Vs Reliance Industries Ltd.
2007 (216) ELT 289 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
(iii) LML Ltd. Vs CCE - 2007 (211) ELT440 (Tri.-Del.)
(iv) Escorts Ltd. Vs CCE 1998 (98)ELT 206 (Tri.-Del.) By virtue of the above Tribunals decisions, we hold that these charges does not form part of the assessable value of cars and has no nexus with the transaction value of cars. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the LAA on this issue. The Revenue relying on the Board's circular dt. 1.7.2002 is of no avail. Accordingly, the LAA's orders on these issues are liable to be upheld.
26.3 As regards the issue of non-inclusion of Profit Margin to Hyundai Motors Plaza (HMP), Revenues main contention is that assessee had sold the cars through their depots situated at Chennai, Mumbai and Delhi. We find that these are plazas/retail show rooms called as Hyundai Motors Plaza where the cars are sold directly to the customers on retail sale. The department had initially alleged that as per amendment of definition of place of removal, the depot becomes place of removal for delivery and sale and the price at which the goods are sold at the depot should be taken as the price. In this regard, we find that these plazas are not depot and there is no sale to whole sale dealers. Since in this case, there is no transaction of whole sale transaction to dealers but it is only a retail sale transaction and the term place of removal is applicable only in a case where the goods are sold in a wholesale transaction. Further, Revenue also contended in their grounds that assesses have not passed on the cash discount. On perusal of the findings and records, we find that appellant-assessee have passed on the discounts to their customers. In this regard, we find that Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs CCE Jalandhar- 2007 (207) ELT 94 (Tri.-Del.) held the issue in favour of the assessee. The Honble Supreme Court has dismissed the civil appeal filed by Revenue on merits as reported in Commissioner Vs Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. 2007 (212) ELT A152 (SC). In view of the aforesaid decision, we hold that profit margin paid at the HMP is not includible in the assessable value of cars and LAA order on this account is liable to be upheld.
27. Issue on Demo Cars:
On this issue, both assessee and Revenue are on appeals before this Tribunal for different periods. Initially, the LAA in his OIA No.41/2004 dt. 28.7.2004 had upheld DC's order dt. 12.12.2003 on rejection of transaction value and redetermination of value on demo cars which led to assessees appeal. But the LAA in his subsequent OIAs for the period 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 had set aside the DC's order on identical issue of demo cars for which Revenue is before this Tribunal. There is no dispute on the fact that assessee sell cars through their dealer network and adopt two different price viz. for normal cars and for demo cars by way of giving special discounts. Adjudicating authority discussed the issue in detail in his findings and disallowed the discount given on the Demo cars and relied the Boards circular issued in F.No.6/40/2002-CX.1 dt.1.4.2003 and re-determined the price payable on demo cars as per the price of normal cars cleared to the dealers. In this regard, we find that the issue of valuation on Demo Cars stands settled by this very Tribunal Bench orders in the case of Ford India Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai reported in 2010-TIOL-329-CESTAT-MAD and 2014 (302) ELT 372 (Tri.-Che.) and also in the case of Royal Enfield Vs CCE Chennai - 2012 (280) ELT 92 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein the Division Bench of this Tribunal had consistently upheld the demand of differential duty on Demo Cars and rejected the assessee's appeals except waiving the penalties. The relevant paragraphs 3 & 4 of the latest decision of this Tribunals order in the case of Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai 2014 (302) ELT 257 (Tri.-Chennai) are reproduced as under :-
3. The assesses have not been able to demonstrate an difference between the demo cars/normal cars sold through dealers. The demo cars are put to test and usage as desired by prospective buyers and the assesses also permit such usage to enhance the marketability of their cars. In these circumstances, the transaction value cannot be accepted and comparable price adopted for other cars (other than demo cars) has correctly been adopted and differential duty charged thereon. We, therefore, uphold the duty demands together with interest but set aside the penalties imposed on the grounds that penalty is not warranted as the assessees received and paid the duty on the transaction value and the demands are also within the normal period of limitation.
4. The appeals are partly allowed by setting aside penalties. Further, we also find that the Honble Supreme Court has dismissed the civil appeal filed by M/s.Ford India Pvt. Ltd. against the above Tribunals order on account of delay as reported in Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner - 2015 (318) ELT A39 (SC). The ratio of the above Tribunals decisions are squarely applicable to the present case as the issues are identical in nature. We find that the lower authority while setting aside the demand came to the conclusion that demo cars are sold at higher price based on few sales whereas the Revenue contended that comparison of price was improper. Since the demo cars are meant for display and publicity, a special discount was given for demo cars which is not the case in the case of normal car. Since the demo car is not at normal sale, but with a condition that it should be used for demonstration purpose/test drive, the price charged for the sale of demo cars is not a normal transaction at the time of place of removal. There was no evidence placed by assessee that the entire sale of Demo cars was sold at higher price whereas we find that the lower authority has gone by few examples of the price of the demo car which is higher than the normal car and the same cannot be taken for entire transaction. As rightly clarified by the Board in their circular No.6/40/2002-CX dt. 1.4.2003, at the time of clearance from the factory gate, there is no difference between the normal car and demo car. The same car is sold to the dealer as Demo car for carrying out test drive by the customers which was subsequently sold to ultimate customer on 'as is where is basis'. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly disallowed the discount on the sale of demo car and redetermined the price as per normal car and demanded the differential duty. By respectfully following this Tribunals decision in the case of Royal Enfield (supra), Ford India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the price of demo cars shall be determined as per normal car cleared to the dealers.
28. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.41/2004 dt. 28.7.2004 in respect of value of demo cars and reject the assessees appeal to that extent. Consequently, we set aside that portion of the orders of LAA in respect of OIA Nos.59/08 dt. 30.3.09; OIA No.64/08 dt. 30.3.09, OIA No.59/09 dt. 3.11.2009 and OIA No.60/09 dt. 3.11.09 relating to Demo cars and uphold the respective adjudication orders on the issue of valuation of demo cars and allow the Revenue appeals on this count.
29. Issue on Availment of Cenvat credit on the structurals used in fabricated paint complex.
As regards the last issue of denial of cenvat credit on the capital goods viz. steel structuals used in the fabricated shops, we find that there is no dispute on the fact that the structurals are used in paint complex which is capital goods used in the manufacture of motor vehicles. We find that this issue stands settled in favour of the assessee by various High Courts orders in the following cases :-
(i) CCE Trichy Vs India Cements 2014 (305)ELT 558 (Mad.) [decided on 13.12.2012]
(ii) CCE & ST Vs India Cements Ltd. 2014 (310) ELT 636 (Mad.) [decided on 10.7.2014]
(iii) CCE Mysore Vs ICL Sugars Ltd.
2011 (271) ELT 360 (Kar.)
(iv) CCE Belgaum Vs Hindalco Industries Ltd.
2012 (286) ELT 503 (Kar.) This Tribunal vide Final Order No.40890/2014 dt. 16.9.2014 in the case of Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. Vs CCE Trichy allowed cenvat credit on the capital goods viz. structurals used in the process of manufacture of cement. By respectfully following the High Courts decision (supra), we hold that assessee is eligible for capital goods credit on the structural used in paint complex. The revenue relying on the LB decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) and Apex Court decision in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. (supra) is not relevant in view of the jurisdictional High Court of Madras decision and other High Court orders discussed above. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the LAA and uphold the same.
30. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that
(a) In respect of issues, viz. (i) PDI/ASS charges, (ii) overriding commission on sale of cars to CSD, (iii) Cost of display kits, (iv) Incentive trips recovered from dealers, (v) non-inclusion of profit margin paid at Hyundai Motor Plaza (HMP) and (vi) cenvat credit on structurals used in fabricated paint complex, Revenues appeals are rejected. Impugned OIA No.41/2004 dt. 28.7.2004, OIA No.59/2008 dt. 30.3.09, OIA 64/08 dt. 30.3.09, OIA 59/09 dt. 3.11.09 and OIA 60/09 dt. 3.11.09 are upheld to the extent of these 6 issues and the assessee appeal E/1265/2004 is partly allowed.
(b) (i) On the issue of valuation on demo cars, the Commissioner (Appeals) order No.41/2004 dt. 28.7.2004 is upheld and the assessees appeal No.E/1265/2004 is dismissed to the extent on this issue.
(ii) Consequently the 4 OIAs No.59/2008 dt. 30.3.09, 64/08 dt. 30.3.09, 59/09 dt. 3.11.09 and 60/09 dt. 3.11.09 are set aside to the extent and the OIOs No.2/2007 dt. 16.3.2007, No.32/2007 dt. 30.11.2007, No.41/2008 dt. 11.11.2008 and OIO No.61/2009 dt. 27.2.2009 passed by original authorities are upheld to the extent of issues on Demo Cars. The 4 Revenue appeals are partly allowed.
(c) In respect of Appeals E/487-489/2011 and E/473/2012, impugned orders are set aside and both the assessee's appeals are allowed.
All the 10 appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
(pronounced the order in open court on 1.12.2015)
(P.K.CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER
Ksr/gs
2