Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 24 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/Decision:24.07.2014
Excise Appeal No.E/59 of 2007-EX (DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.09//PP/CE/2006 dated 29.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III (Gurgaon)
M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-III Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_____________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
Appearance: Rep. by Shri Rahul for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the respondent.
CORAM: Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53003/Dated:24.07.2014 Per Archana Wadhwa:
A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. The appellant is getting the Caliper Assemblies manufactured from M/s. Brakes India Ltd., which are also supplying the pad component and front brakes free of costs to M/s. Brakes India Ltd. M/s. Brakes India Ltd. cleared the final products on payment of duty on the assessable value arrived at on the basis of the job charges plus the manufacturing cost, which included the cost of free supplied items by the appellant. While taking the value of the free supplied items, he instead of adopting the basic value, adopted the cum duty value, which resulted in higher assessable value of the Calliper Assembly manufactured by M/s.Brakes India Ltd. As such, higher duty was paid by M/s.Brakes India Ltd. and the appellant took credit of that higher duty paid by M/s. Brakes India Ltd. Revenue entertained a view that as M/s. Brakes India Ltd. paid higher duty, which they were not required to pay, the appellant is not entitled to the credit of such excise duty. Accordingly, the proceedings for denial of credit was initiated resulting in passing of the present impugned order confirming demand of Rs.53,63,949/- and imposing an identical amount of penalty.
2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the issue is no more res integra and the assesee is entitled to the credit of duty PAID by the input suppliers. There is no dispute in the present case that the appellant has taken the credit of the duty paid by the input suppliers. Revenues contention that input supplier should have paid the lesser duty, cannot be appreciated, for the purpose of denial of credit to the present assessee. It is well settled law that the assessments at the end of the input supplier cannot be re-opened at the end of the input recipient. Reference can be made to the Honble Supreme Court on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. 2008 (229) ELT 485 (SC) laying down that quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of suppliers unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officer incharge of the recipient unit.
3. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1