Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 3 December, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
DIVISION BENCH
Court No.3
Excise Appeal No.E/2108/2008,
Excise Appeal No.4/2009 &
Excise Appeal No.E/669/2010
(Arising out of OIO No.10-11/JM/CE/08 dt.31.5.08, OIO No.22/JM/CE/08 dt.25.9.08 and OIO No.83/SSS/CE/09 dt.22.12.09 passed by the CCE, Delhi-III)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 03.12.2014
For approval and signature:
Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s.Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. Appellant
Vs
.
CCE, Delhi-III. Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri B.L.Narsimhan, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar, AR
Coram: Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
FINAL ORDER NO.54658-54660/2014
PER: ARCHANA WADHWA
All the 3 appeals are being disposed of by this common order as the issue involved in all these appeals is same. The appellant has two units, Unit No.1 and Unit No.2. Both Units are manufacturing various motor vehicle parts for M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd.
2. As the appellant explained to us that unit No.1 is manufacturing major motor vehicle parts, which we call as mother part. For the manufacture of said motor vehicle parts, some smaller parts as required, which are being manufactured by Unit No..2, which we call as child parts.
3. M/s.Maruti Udyog supplied moulds on free of cost basis to Unit No.1. Said moulds supplied by M/s.Maruti Udyog are used for manufacture of mother parts as also child parts. As per the appellant, Unit No.1, amortized cost of such free supplied moulds, in its entirety, to the motor vehicle parts manufactured by them, even though parts of moulds were used for further manufacture by their unit No.2 for the manufacture of child parts.
4. It may not be out of place to mention that child parts manufactured by Unit No.2 were supplied to Unit No.1 on payment of duty of excise. In the Unit No.1, such child parts were used for the manufacture of mother components which are again cleared by unit No.1 on payment of duty to M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd.
5. There is not dispute in respect of valuation of mother components manufactured by unit No.1 inasmuch as the cost of moulds supplied by M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd. stands amortized in the value of mother components. The dispute is only in respect of unit No.2, where cost of moulds supplied by M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd. on free cost through unit No.1 has not been added in the assessable value of child parts on amortized basis.
6. The contention of the assessee is that inasmuch as the total cost of moulds, inclusive of cost of moulds of child part already stand amortized in the cost of mother components being manufactured by unit No.1, confirmation of demand on such ground against Unit no.2, would not be justified, inasmuch as the entire situation would lead to revenue neutral situation.
7. Though we agree with the above contention of ld.Advocate that if the cost of moulds already stands included in the value of mother components manufactured by Unit No.1, further addition of cost of moulds related to child parts manufactured in the factory of unit No.2 may not be justified. However, on being questioned, we find that though said issue was raised before the Commissioner but no breakup was provided by the appellant. Accordingly the Commissioner has not examined the issue from the above angle.
8. Inasmuch as the factual position can be verified only at the original level, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for verification of above stand of the appellant.
9. Needless to say that the appellant would be given an opportunity for the same and would co-operate in the matter. All the other contentions either in respect of merit or time bar etc. shall remain open for the appellant to contest the same before the adjudicating authority for de novo proceedings.
10. All the three appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in the open court)
(RAKESH KUMAR) (ARCHANA WADHWA)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
mk
6