Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Denso India Private Limited vs Additional Director General ... on 12 March, 2024
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
EXCISE APPEAL NO. 52419 OF 2022
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 69-141-2022-CE dated 25.08.2022 passed by
the Additional Director General (Adjudication), New Delhi)
Denso India Private Limited ....Appellant
Noida Dadri Road, Tilpatta, Tehsil Dadri,
Gautam Budh Nagar - 203 205
Uttar Pradesh
VERSUS
Additional Director General (Adjudication) ....Respondent
Directorate General of GST Intelligence
West Block-Viii, Wing-6,
2nd Floor, R.K. Puram
New Delhi - 110066
WITH
E/52247/2022 E/52252/2022 E/52258/2022 E/52297/2022
E/52248/2022 E/52254/2022 E/52267/2022 E/52298/2022
E/52249/2022 E/52255/2022 E/52268/2022 E/52299/2022
E/52250/2022 E/52256/2022 E/52273/2022 E/50004/2023
E/52251/2022 E/52257/2022 E/52296/2022
WITH
E/52389/2022 E/52413/2022 E/52432/2022 E/50044/2023
E/52390/2022 E/52414/2022 E/52433/2022 E/50055/2023
E/52391/2022 E/52415/2022 E/52434/2022 E/50056/2023
E/52392/2022 E/52416/2022 E/52435/2022 E/51271/2023
E/52393/2022 E/52417/2022 E/52436/2022 E/51272/2023
E/52394/2022 E/52418/2022 E/52437/2022 E/51273/2023
E/52395/2022 E/52420/2022 E/52438/2022 E/51274/2023
E/52396/2022 E/52421/2022 E/52439/2022 E/51275/2023
E/52397/2022 E/52422/2022 E/52440/2022 E/51276/2023
E/52398/2022 E/52423/2022 E/52441/2022 E/51277/2023
E/52399/2022 E/52424/2022 E/52442/2022 E/51729/2023
E/52400/2022 E/52425/2022 E/52443/2022 E/53920/2023
E/52407/2022 E/52426/2022 E/52444/2022 E/53921/2023
E/52408/2022 E/52428/2022 E/52445/2022 E/53922/2023
E/52409/2022 E/52429/2022 E/52470/2022 E/52410/2022
E/52430/2022 E/52471/2022 E/52412/2022 E/52431/2022
E/50028/2023
WITH
E/52406/2022 E/52411/2022 E/52427/2022 E/52472/2022
E/51985/2023
2
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
WITH
E/51739/2023 E/51964/2023 E/52491/2023 E/52873/2023
E/51952/2023 E/51965/2023 E/52492/2023 E/52874/2023
E/51953/2023 E/51966/2023 E/52632/2023 E/52875/2023
E/51954/2023 E/52481/2023 E/52637/2023 E/52876/2023
E/51955/2023 E/52482/2023 E/52638/2023 E/52877/2023
E/51956/2023 E/52483/2023 E/52639/2023 E/54676/2023
E/51957/2023 E/52484/2023 E/52640/2023 E/54744/2023
E/51958/2023 E/52485/2023 E/52641/2023 E/54746/2023
E/51959/2023 E/52486/2023 E/52642/2023 E/54969/2023
E/51960/2023 E/52487/2023 E/52643/2023 E/54970/2023
E/51961/2023 E/52488/2023 E/52644/2023 E/55218/2023
E/51962/2023 E/52489/2023 E/52645/2023 E/51963/2023
E/52490/2023 E/52872/2023
WITH
E/53887/2023 E/53896/2023 E/53905/2023 E/53914/2023
E/53888/2023 E/53897/2023 E/53906/2023 E/53915/2023
E/53889/2023 E/53898/2023 E/53907/2023 E/54968/2023
E/53890/2023 E/53899/2023 E/53908/2023 E/54971/2023
E/53891/2023 E/53900/2023 E/53909/2023 E/55092/2023
E/53892/2023 E/53901/2023 E/53910/2023 E/55262/2023
E/53893/2023 E/53902/2023 E/53911/2023 E/55264/2023
E/53894/2023 E/53903/2023 E/53912/2023 E/55266/2023
E/53895/2023 E/53904/2023 E/53913/2023 E/55366/2023
WITH
E/54767/2023 E/54799/2023
WITH
E/54985/2023 E/54995/2023 E/54998/2023 E/55042/2023
E/54993/2023 E/54996/2023 E/54999/2023 E/55093/2023
E/54994/2023 E/54997/2023 E/55001/2023 E/55107/2023
WITH
E/54992/2023 E/55000/2023 E/55038/2023
AND
E/55313/2023 E/55318/2023 E/55319/2023 E/55328/2023
E/55317/2023
3
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
APPEARANCE:
Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Shri S.C. Vaidyanathan, Shri Puneet Bansal, Shri
Deepak Suneja, Shri Dhanur Gupta, Shri Anu Thakur, Shri Lalitendra
Gulani, Shri Vikas Agarwal with Shri Manish Sachdeva, Shri Rajeev
Agnihotri, Shri Shashi Mathew, Shri Rakesh Bhola and Shri Mihir
Deshmukh, Advocates for the Appellants.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Authorized Representative of the Department
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
DATE OF HEARING: 10.01.2024
DATE OF DECISION: 12.03.2024
FINAL ORDER NO's. 55140-55337/2024
JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA :
The issue involved in all the aforesaid appeals that have been
filed by vendors of Maruti Suzuki India Limited1, which is engaged in
the manufacture of motor vehicles and procures the desired parts
and components from vendors, is whether the notional cost of
drawings and designs supplied free of cost by Maruti to the vendors
should be included in the assessable value of parts or components
manufactured by vendors and cleared to Maruti for the purpose of
payment of central excise duty.
2. According to the vendors, parts or components, being an
engineering product, are required to be made as per the requirement
of Maruti and it is for this reason that Maruti provides the
specifications of the parts or components in the form of drawings
free of cost to the potential vendors and seeks quotations. The
specifications enable the potential vendors to properly understand
1. Maruti
4
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
the requirements and provide the best price quotations for the
manufacture and supply of the desired parts or components. Once
the vendor is selected and a letter of intent is issued, the vendor
prepares detailed drawings and designs for the products to be
supplied, corresponding to the specifications received from Maruti.
The final products are then manufactured with the help of detailed
drawings and designs prepared by the vendors. According to the
vendors, the cost incurred by them towards the manufacturing
activity includes the development cost incurred in the preparation of
the detailed drawings and designs by them.
3. The department, however, believed that the cost of the
specifications supplied by Maruti to the vendors free of cost should
be included in the assessable value of the final products
manufactured by the vendors in terms of rule 6 of the Central Excise
Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 20002.
Accordingly, show cause notices were issued to the vendors. The
adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand holding that the
cost of the specifications provided by Maruti has to be included in the
assessable value of the product manufactured by the vendors and
cleared to Maruti.
4. It has, therefore, to be determined whether the notional cost
of specifications in the form of drawings and designs supplied free of
cost by Maruti to the potential vendors should be included in the
assessable value of the parts or components manufactured by the
vendors and cleared to Maruti for their motor vehicles.
5. To appreciate this issue, it would be necessary to narrate the
factual dispute and for this purpose the facts of Excise Appeal No.
2. The 2000 Valuation Rules
5
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
52419 of 2022 filed by Denso India Private Limited3 are narrated.
6. According to the appellant, the process of procurement of the
desired parts or components by Maruti begins by inviting quotations
from different manufacturers. For this, the Research and
Development team of Maruti, in consultation with the Supply Chain
and Quality Assurance team of Maruti, first shortlists the potential
vendors for a particular part or component. Thereafter, the Research
and Development team transfers the specifications of the said part or
component in the form of drawings and two-dimensional/three-
dimensional designs4 along with other relevant details in a web-
based software. The specifications of the desired part or component,
for which Maruti does not charge any amount, are shared through
the web-based software with all the potential vendors. The Supply
Chain team requests the shortlisted potential vendors to provide
their price quotation for a particular part or component. This process
is known as 'Request for Quotation'. The potential vendors provide
price quotation to Maruti, which selects one or more vendors based
on its technical evaluation and the price quoted.
7. The appellant was selected as the vendor for manufacture and
supply of final products and consequently a letter of intent was
issued to the appellant containing details of the products, price and
terms and conditions of sale.
8. For the manufacture of the parts or component, the appellant
has to propose detailed drawings and designs for which the appellant
also received technical support from its parent company, namely,
Denso Corporation, Japan. For this purpose various license
3. the appellant
4. the specifications
6
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
agreements were entered into from time to time for grant of a non-
exclusive right to the appellant to manufacture, use and sell the
licensed articles (including the final products) under a licensed
patent and technical information owned by Denso Corportion, Japan.
In terms of the said License Agreement, the appellant paid running
royalty to Denso, Japan at the rate of 3% of the net sales of licensed
articles (including the final products) in lieu of receipt and use of
technical support. The appellant also paid service tax on such royalty
amount under the reverse charge mechanism.
9. In few cases, where alternators are to be manufactured for a
new model of vehicle, third parties prepare their own drawings and
designs for the necessary tooling/ dies/moulds5 manufactured and
sold to the appellant. The appellant sold the moulds to Maruti and
Maruti, in turn, supplied the moulds to the appellant free of cost in
terms of rule 4(5)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 20046. The
appellant, thereafter, manufactured the final products with the help
of detailed drawings and designs as well as the moulds (wherever
required) after amortising the cost of moulds and cleared the final
products to Maruti on payment of the applicable central excise duty.
10. The appellant incorporated all costs incurred towards its
manufacturing activity, including the development cost incurred
towards preparation of the detailed drawings and designs. A copy of
the Chartered Accountant certificate showing inclusion of such
development cost for preparation of the detailed drawings and
designs in the assessable value of the final products for payment of
duty has been placed on record by the appellant.
5. Moulds
6. Credit Rules
7
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
11. According to the appellant, the aforesaid practice and valuation
methodology was followed by the appellant since the time its unit
was established and no dispute had ever been raised by the
department regarding the valuation methodology during various
audits of the appellant. The appellant has also stated that this
methodology is being followed by other manufacturers who have
filed the present appeals.
12. After conducting investigation against Maruti and after
recording statement of an employee of the appellant, a show cause
notice dated 19.03.2019 was issued by the Directorate General of
GST Intelligence, Gurugram Zonal Unit to the appellant, proposing to
demand central excise duty of Rs. 13,36,74,641 under section
11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 19447 by invoking the extended
period of limitation, along with interest under section 11AA and
penalty under section 11AC of the Excise Act read with rules 25 and
26 of the Central Excise Rules, 20028. The show cause notice
alleged that the cost of specifications supplied by Maruti to the
appellant on free of cost basis should be included in the assessable
value of the final products manufactured by the appellant in terms of
rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules read with rule 11 relying on the
decision of Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise,
Jamshedpur vs. Tata Motors9. The proposed duty demand was
quantified by taking a percentage of the amount of running royalty
and lump-sum royalty paid by Maruti to Suzuki Motor Corporation,
Japan as the notional cost of the specifications provided by Maruti.
7. the Excise Act
8. the Excise Rules
9. 2009 (237) E.L.T. 147 (Tri-Kol)
8
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
13. The appellant filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice
and further submitted additional written submissions before the
adjudicating authority rebutting all the allegations contained in the
show cause notice.
14. The adjudicating authority, by order dated 25.08.2022,
confirmed the duty demand holding that the cost of specifications
provided by Maruti is liable to be included in the assessable value of
the final products manufactured by the appellant and cleared to
Maruti during the period of dispute. However, the adjudicating
authority partially dropped the proposed duty demand by holding
that the amount of running royalty paid by Maruti to Suzuki Motor
Corporation, Japan is not includible in the assessable value of the
final products, but only the amount of lump-sum royalty is includible
in such assessable value as the notional cost of specifications
provided by Maruti. Accordingly, partial duty demand has been
confirmed against the appellant under the extended period of
limitation along with interest and penalty has also been imposed
equal to the duty demand. The impugned order has dropped the
proposal to impose penalty on the employees of Maruti.
15. The facts of the other appeals, except five Excise Appeal No's.
52406, 52411, 52427, 52472 of 2022 and Excise Appeal No. 51985
of 2023, are more or less similar. These five Excise Appeals have
been filed by traders to whom show cause notices were also issued
on the assumption that they are manufacturers and excise duty has
been fastened upon them. One such trader, namely, Minda D-Ten
India Pvt. Ltd. (Excise Appeal No. 52411 of 2022), at the time of
recording of the statement on 20.12.2018, specifically stated that it
was engaged in trading of car infotainment systems and did not
9
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
undertake manufacturing activities, but still a show cause notice was
issued and though this fact that it was not a manufacturer but a
trader was also brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority,
the adjudicating authority without considering this submission
confirmed the demand. Similar is the position with respect to the
remaining four Excise Appeals which have also been filed by traders.
16. Details of the Excise Appeals, duty demand confirmed, date of
show cause notice, period of dispute in appeal, period which is time
barred, and the duty confirmed for the normal period is provided in a
chart enclosed with this order.
17. The orders dated 29.07.2022, 25.08.2022, 30.11.2022,
30.12.2022, 10.01.2023, 23.02.2023, 30.03.2023 and 28.04.2023
passed by the adjudicating authority have been assailed in these
appeals. The reasons that have been assigned for upholding the
demand of differential central excise duty are similar. The relevant
portion of one such order dated 25.08.2022 which has been assailed
in Excise Appeal No. 52419 of 2022 filed by the appellant, is
reproduced below:
"20.2 .......There is no doubt that the
specification drawings/ Part design/ CAD
provided by MSIL are technical drawings and
MSIL incurs cost in getting the drawings
which are engineering drawings and fall under
the category of "licensed information". Rule 6 of
Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of
Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 provides for the
inclusion of value of any additional consideration
flowing from the buyer. The drawings
specifications/technical specifications etc. are
covered under 'Licensed Information...............".
The said licensed Information has been procured
by MSIL. on meeting obligations of royalty
payments for each model of the car for the right
10
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
to use the licensed information. MSIL pays two
types of royalty viz lump sum royalty and running
royalty to M/s SMC in lieu of getting such
"Licensed information". The amount of royalty
paid by MSIL to SIMC is mentioned In para 8.5
and 8.6 of the SCN. Thus there is not an iota of
doubt that MSIL is incurring cost in getting the
licensed information i.e., drawings from SMC
which is supplied to the vendors (Noticees No: 1)
for manufacture of the components/parts.
20.3 ***** When such licensed
information i.e, the drawings are provided to
the vendors free of cost there is an element
of additional consideration flowing from
MSIL to the vendors which is required to be
added to the assessable value of the goods
manufactured by Noticees No. 1 in terms of
the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) read with
Rule 6 of Excise Valuation (Determination of
Price of Excisable Good) Rules 2000.
*****
20.5 It has been contended by the Noticees that Sh. Anil Sahani, DGM Finance of M/s MSIL in his five voluntary statements stated that MSIL merely provided its requirement for the components to be manufactured to the vendors as it is a pre-requisite that the component must conform to the drawing/ specification provided by MSIL. I find the contention that the MSIL issues only specifications of the final product, the Internal/child parts are developed and conceptualized by Notices itself does not make any difference as the amount of R&D Incurred by the Noticees on the drawing supplied by MSIL would any way is already accounted for in the assessable value of the final product. However the technical specification supplied by MSIL and cast incurred by MSIL is not included in the moulds/dies manufactured by the vendors. Whether it is shared by MSIL voluntarily or not has no relevance. Whether the vendor is 11 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
working on the said specification in their own R&D centre to fine tune the said drawing or to design the child parts is of no consequence as the initial specification / drawings that are supplied by MSIL and the cost incurred on such drawings remained to be included in the assessable value as discussed in paras above."
(emphasis supplied)
18. After placing reliance upon a decision of the Tribunal in AVTEC Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore10, the adjudicating authority further held:
"20.8 ***** I find that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are similar to the above cited case law and therefore the said case law is applicable to the present case. The Tribunal has held that drawings are technical information and not simple arithmetical specifications to be followed by vendors and therefore the value of design, drawings and technical specifications is to be added in the value of goods cleared by the job worker. The Noticee's pleas that the specification drawings provided by MSIL are not technical Information but simple specification is thus not acceptable. The Noticees themselves have admitted that they have received specification drawings from MSIL which is licensed information for manufacture of the components. In light of the above cited judicial pronouncements, I find that the value of the drawings and technical specifications provided by MSIL is required to be added to the assessable value of goods cleared by the Noticees. Under the circumstances, the entire battery of contentions shall require to be rejected as devoid of merits."
*****
10. 2017 (7) GSTL 115 (Tri-Del) 12 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
20.10 Thus in terms of Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 6 the specifications / drawings / CAD given by MSIL to the Noticees qualify as additional consideration flowing from the buyer (MSIL) to the seller (vendors) for manufacture of part/component and such additional consideration is required to be included in the assessable value. Thus the contention of the Noticee that the Noticee satisfies all the conditions for adoption of transaction value under clause (a) of Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act does not have any merit as the price is not the sole consideration and the assessable value needs to be worked out under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000."
(emphasis supplied)
19. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned counsel of the appellant assisted by Shri S.C. Vaidyanathan led the arguments on behalf of the appellants and made the following submissions :
(i) The entire proceedings initiated by the show cause notice which has culminated in the impugned order shows complete callousness and arbitrariness on the part of the department to somehow fasten huge duty liability on the appellant, without considering the correct factual aspects, even though pointed out at the time of investigation itself. Elaborating this submission, learned counsel pointed out that show cause notices were issued even to traders who had not even manufactured the components on the presumption that they were manufacturers and though even before the issuance of the show cause notice and also in reply to the show cause notice this factual position was pointed out but 13 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
neither the show cause notice or the adjudication order deal with this aspect;
(ii) The show cause notice refers to a specific purchase agreement of the year 2007, which has been enclosed as Annexure-19, but this agreement is not relevant to the dispute raised in this appeal;
(iii) The provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the Excise Act and rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules are not invokable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Something can be treated as an additional consideration for the sale of the goods only when there exists a sale contract or at least an agreement to sell between the two parties and in term of such an agreement the buyer pays something more than the price agreed, either in cash or in kind, to the manufacturer. Anything which is supplied by the buyer to the manufacturer much before even identifying the potential manufacturer as the supplier can never be treated as an additional consideration for sale. In the present case, after the letter of intent was issued, nothing, except than the price of the goods, has been supplied or paid by Maruti to the appellant. It is also an admitted position in the show cause notice that when moulds or dies were supplied free of cost or at reduced cost by Maruti to the appellant, the value of the same was duly amortised in the value of the component and excise duty was paid on such value by the appellant. Hence, there is no additional consideration for sale received by the appellant from Maruti in the present case. Consequently, neither section 4(1)(b) of the Excise Act nor rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules is invokable; 14
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
(iv) In the present case, the specifications and drawings were supplied by Maruti at the time of identification and short listing of the vendors for supply of parts or components of a particular model of vehicle. Thus, what is supplied by one party to another for obtaining the quotation at the time of the tender process, when the buyer seller relationship has not even fructified, can never be treated as an additional consideration for sale;
(v) The specifications provided by Maruti to the potential vendors can never be said to be either used in the production of the parts or components or necessary for the production of the parts or components within the meaning of rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules;
(vi) Even otherwise, the value assigned to the specifications is incorrect in the absence of proper valuation mechanism and the assignment of the entire value of lump-sum royalty to specifications is incorrect as only a small portion of lump-sum royalty can be said to be attributed to the specifications supplied by Maruti;
(vii) Explanation (1) to rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules is analogous to rule 10(1)(b) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 200711 [corresponding to Rule 9(1)(b) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988) and the true scope of the aforesaid clauses
(ii) and (iv) of Explanation (1) to rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules can be better understood by analysing the said provisions of the 2007 Customs Valuation Rules;
(viii) The decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of
11. The 2007 Customs Valuation Rules 15 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
Central Excise, Jamshedpur vs. Tata Motors12 and AVTEC Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore; and AVTEC Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi13 relied upon by the department are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case;
(ix) The extended period of limitation under section 11A(4) of the Excise Act is not invokable in the present case;
(x) Penalties are also not imposable under section 11AC of the Excise Act;
(xi) The duty demand confirmed in respect of the vendors operating as registered dealers of excisable goods is not sustainable; and
(xii) The appellant is entitled to the benefit of cum-duty price.
20. Shri Vikash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing in Excise Appeal No. 55093 of 2023; Shri Shashi Mathews, learned counsel appearing in Excise Appeal Nos. 55317 of 2023, 55318 of 2023 and 55319 of 2023; Shri Puneet Bansal, learned counsel appearing in Excise Appeal Nos. 50004 of 2023; 52247 to 52252 of 2022; 52254 to 52258 of 2022; 52267 to 52268 of 2022; 52273 of 2022; 52297 to 52298 of 2022; 51739 of 2023; 55000 of 2023; and 55038 of 2023; and Ms. Anu Thakur, learned counsel appearing in Excise Appeal Nos. 54992 of 2023; 52296 of 2022 and 52299 of 2022 have supported the submissions advanced by Shri B.L. Narasimhan.
21. Shri Rakesh Agarwal, learned authorized representative appearing for the department submitted that in terms of the Licensing Agreement between Maruti and Suzuki Motor Corporation, Japan; the process flow between Maruti and vendors; the Basic
12. 2009 (237) ELT 147 (Tri.-Kolkata)
13. 2017 (358) ELT 700 (Tri.-Del) 16 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
Purchase Agreement entered between Maruti and vendors and the Letter of Intent, it is clear that the drawings were provided free of cost to the vendors and the vendors by using such drawings manufactured the parts or components and sold it to Maruti without including the cost of such drawings/designs/specifications in the value of the manufactured product. Learned authorized representative pointed out that it is not the case of the appellant that they could have manufactured the parts or components without reference to the specifications provided by Maruti. Learned authorized representative, therefore, submitted that as the amount of money value or any additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee is includible in terms of rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules, the said value was required to be included in the value of the manufactured product. Learned authorized representative also submitted that Explanation (1) to rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules is only for the purpose of removal of doubts and clarificatory in nature and it is not exhaustive but illustrative. In this connection, learned authorized representative placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in (i) AVTEC Ltd. (ii) Tata Motors; and (iii) Moriroku UT India. Learned authorized representative also submitted that the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case.
22. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered.
23. The issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the department is justified in demanding the differential central excise duty from the vendors by including the notional cost of 17 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
specification drawings and deigns supplied free of cost by Maruti in the assessable value of parts or components of motor vehicles manufactured by the appellants and cleared to Maruti.
24. To appreciate this issue, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and the 2000 Valuation Rules.
25. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act deals with 'valuation of excisable goods' for the purposes of charging of duty of excise and the relevant portion is reproduced below:
"4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise-
(1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall-
(a) in a case where the goods are sold by assessee, for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale be the transaction value;
(b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed."
26. It would be seen from a bare perusal of sub-section (1) of section 4 that it provides for determination of the value of excisable goods in the circumstances enumerated in (a) and (b) of section 4(1). Clause (a) deals a situation where the goods are sold by the assessee and the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is sole consideration for the sale. In this situation the transaction value has to be taken into consideration for 18 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
the purposes of charging duty of excise. However, in any other case including a case where the goods are not sold, the value, under clause (b) has to be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.
27. Thus, section 4(1)(b) deals with the following situations:
(1) Where the goods are not sold by the assessee; or (2) Where the assessee and the buyer are related persons;
or (3) Where the price is not the sole consideration for sale between the manufacturer and buyer and there is an additional consideration for sale of the goods.
28. The relevant portion of rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules, on which reliance has been placed in the show cause notice and the impugned order, is reproduced below:
"6. Where the excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 4 of the Act except the circumstance where the price is not the sole consideration for sale, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the aggregate of such transaction value and the amount of money value of any additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee.
Provided that where price is not the sole consideration for sale of such excisable goods and they are sold by the assessee at a price less than manufacturing cost and profit, and no additional consideration is flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to such assessee, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value.
Explanation 1 - For removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the value, apportioned as appropriate, of the following goods and services, whether supplied directly or indirectly by the 19 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
buyer free of charge or at reduced cost for use in connection with the production and sale of such goods, to the extent that such value has not been included in the price actually paid or payable, shall be treated to be the amount of money value of additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee in relation to sale of the goods being valued and aggregated accordingly, namely:-
(i) value of materials, components, parts and similar items relatable to such goods;
(ii) value of tools, dies, moulds, drawings, blue prints, technical maps and charts and similar items used in the production of such goods;
(iii) value of material consumed, including packaging materials, in the production of such goods;
(iv) value of engineering, development, art work, design work and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in the factory of production and necessary for the production of such goods."
29. It clearly transpires from the aforesaid provisions that something can be treated as an additional consideration for sale of goods only when there exists a contract of sale or an agreement to sell between the two parties and in terms of such an agreement the buyer pays something over and above the price agreed, either in cash or in kind to the manufacturer. Thus, anything which is supplied by the buyer to the manufacturer before even identifying the potential manufacturer as the supplier can never be treated as an additional consideration for sale. It also transpires that the specification drawings and designs were supplied by Maruti to the potential vendors free of cost before the letter of intent was issued and after the letter of intent was issued to the appellant the price of goods was paid by Maruti to the appellant and no other amount was paid, and it is not even the allegation made in the show cause notice that the buyer had paid any amount to the appellant over and above 20 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
the consideration price after the letter of intent was issued. It, therefore, follows that neither section 4(1)(b) of the Excise Act nor rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules could have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case as no additional consideration towards sale has been received by the appellant from Maruti.
30. Even under rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules, the value of four categories of goods and services specified therein can be treated as the amount of additional consideration that can be added to the assessable value of the goods. What transpires from Explanation (1) to rule 6 is that:
(i) Specified goods and services must be supplied directly or indirectly by the buyer;
(ii) Such supplies must be made free of charge or at reduced cost;
(iii) Such supplies must be made for use in connection with the production and sale of goods;
(iv) The addition in the assessable value must be made to the extent that the value of such goods and services has not been included in the price actually paid or payable; and
(v) The goods or services in question must fall within any of the four clauses (i) to (iv) mentioned in Explanation (1).
31. A plain reading of clauses (ii) and (iv) of Explanation (1) to rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules leaves no manner of doubt that only those specified goods and services are covered which are used in the production of goods in question or which are undertaken 21 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
elsewhere than in the factory of production and necessary for the production of goods in question.
32. It is clear that the purpose behind rule 6 is to levy excise duty on all those expenses which are incurred by a buyer on behalf of the seller-manufacturer and relieves the seller-manufacturer from incurring such expenses. Thus, the expressions 'drawings, blue prints, technical maps and charts and similar items' mentioned in clause (ii) of Explanation (1), and 'design work and plans and sketches' mentioned in clause (iv) of Explanation (1) can only mean those drawings and designs which a manufacturer would have prepared for use in the manufacture of the product but were prepared by the buyer and supplied to such manufacturer on free of cost or at reduced cost. This is clear from the language used in clauses (ii) and (iv) of Explanation (1) to rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules. It covers drawings which are used in the production of such goods and those designs which are necessary for the production of such goods.
33. The contention of the learned authorized representative appearing for the department, however, is that the drawings/designs supplied by Maruti were only and exclusively instrumental in development of the product by the appellants. Learned authorized representative also pointed out that it is not even the case of the appellant that they could have manufactured the parts or component without reference to the specification drawings supplied to them by Maruti free of cost. Thus, the price was not the sole consideration and the additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the appellant would be includable in view of the provisions of rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules. 22
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
34. It is not possible to accept this contention of the learned authorised representative for the department. The specification drawings were supplied by Maruti to the potential vendors for the purpose of short-listing the vendors for supply of components of vehicle. What is important to notice is that the item that is under consideration in the present case is an engineering item. A buyer may like to first identify the potential vendors who can supply the parts and components of engineering items, and unless the potential vendor is made aware of what is the requirement by way of design and drawing, the vendor may not be in a position to quote a price for the supply. Thus, what information is supplied at the time of tender process by way of specifications and drawings for inviting bids from potential vendors is the specific requirement supplied free of cost to all those who would participate in the tender process.
35. What is important to note is that the appellant had to prepare detailed drawings and designs for which it received technical support from its present company Denso Corporation. License Agreements were entered into between the appellant and Denso Corporation for grant of a non-exclusive right to the appellant to manufacture, use and sell the licensed articles. In terms of the License Agreements, the appellant paid running royalty to Denso Japan at the rate of 3 % of the net sales of the licensed articles and the appellant paid service tax on this amount. If the specifications and designs supplied by the Maruti were sufficient for the manufacture of parts and components, there would have been no necessity for the appellant to seek technical support for manufacture in the form of detailed designs and specifications and pay a huge royalty. The manufacture of the spare parts and components by the appellant was, therefore, not possible 23 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
from the specification and designs supplied by Maruti. The manufacture of the parts and components was possible only from the detailed drawings prepared by the appellant.
36. Even if Maruti had to spend some amount for getting these drawings by making payment of royalty to Suzuki Maruti Corporation, Japan, the position would not change as this cannot be said to form an additional consideration for sale of parts or components. It also needs to be noted that these specification drawings provided by Maruti to the potential vendors cannot be said to be used in the production of the components or necessary for the production of the components in terms of rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules. Thus, clauses (ii) or (iv) to Explanation (1) of rule 6 of the 2007 Valuation Rules cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
37. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to compare Explanation (1) to rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules to an analogous rule 10(1)(b) of the 2007 Customs Valuation Rules. This rule 10(1)(b) is reproduced below:
"10. Cost and services - (1) In determining the transaction value, there shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods-
(a) *****
(b) the value, apportioned as appropriate,
of the following goods and services whether supplied directly or indirectly by the buyer free of charge or at reduced cost for use in connection with the production and sale for export of imported goods, to the extent that such value has not been included in the price actually paid or payable, namely:-
(i) materials, components, parts and similar 24 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
items incorporated in the imported goods;
(ii) tools, dies, moulds and similar items used in the production of the imported goods;
(iii) materials consumed in the production of the imported goods;
(iv) engineering, development, art work, design work, and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in India and necessary for the production of the imported goods."
(emphasis supplied)
38. Rule 10(1)(b) has been borrowed from article 8.1(b) of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade14. Under the GATT Agreement as also the 2007 Customs Valuation Rules, the specified goods and services are informally known as 'assists', the value of which is includable in the assessable value of imported goods. The expression 'necessary for the production of the imported goods' appearing in clause (iv) of rule 10(1)(b) of the 2007 Customs Valuation Rules has been interpreted in the context of 'assists' not to include those design which merely specify the requirement of a buyer or dimension of the product.
39. In this connection, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of Customs Valuation - Commentary on the GATT Customs Valuation Code by Saul L. Sherman and Hinrich Glashoff. The learned authors have observed that the value of detail specifications, including various dimensions noted on a drawing of the machine, which merely provide the requirement of the buyer and inform the manufacturer of the specifications of what is being ordered, cannot be said to be dutiable 'assists' under clause (iv) of article 8.1(b) of the GATT Agreement. The relevant portion of the book is reproduced below:
14. the GATT Agreement 25 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
"Detailed specifications, including various dimensions noted on a drawing of the machine, are included in the buyer's order, so as to advise the exporter/manufacturer of what the buyer needs. The cost of engineering and drawing are not part of customs value, even if undertaken outside the country to which the machine is shipped, to the extent that they are an appropriate way of ordering the machine - that is, of telling the manufacturer the specifications of what is being ordered. Only if the engineering or drawing goes further should it be deemed to be a part of the production process. Up to that point, each specification and instruction is more appropriately regarded as an added requirement or burden imposed upon the manufacturer, rather than a form of assistance. Otherwise expressed, these are buying costs, not costs of the seller from which he is being relieved by the buyer."
(emphasis supplied)
40. The Tribunal in Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. C.C., Mangalore15 also held that there is a distinction between mere specifications and detailed engineering drawing. It is only the latter which is covered under rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 (which is now rule 10(1)(b)(iv) of the 2007 Customs Valuation Rules). The relevant portion of the decision of the Tribunal is reproduced below:
"9.3 When a person buys a product available, off-the-shelf, he need not be concerned with the Engineering Design and services which have gone into the manufacture of such product. He has to merely order by giving the specifications. If a person wants to buy an air-conditioner, he
15. 2014 (313) E.L.T. 353 (Tri. - Bang.) 26 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
may specify whether it should be window type or split type and also specify the tonnage besides the brand name. He may consult a specialist to identify such requirements. These specifications are in the nature of "buyers' assist" and the cost incurred for getting such specifications cannot become part of value of the goods in the hands of the supplier.
9.4 When a sophisticated technology is involved in the manufacture of any products and the process involved in the manufacture is a patented one, the equipments required have to be compatible with the patented process and assistance may be required before ordering such equipments. In such a case, the Engineering services utilized for preparing tender documents will be in the nature of "buyers' assist" and the same cannot be treated as necessary in the hands of the manufacturer of the equipments for the purpose of manufacture of such equipments.
*****
11. A close analysis of the legal provisions extracted in para 9.1 above and the decisions relied upon by both sides, the following important guidelines/principles emerge :
(a) As already noted, the transaction value to be determined under Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules envisages adjustments to be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules. This is evident from the observation contained in the decision dated 21-2-2008 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Ferodo India Pvt.
(b) The value of certain goods and services meant "for use in connection with the production and sale for export of imported goods" requires to be added to arrive at the transaction value as per Rule 9(1)(b). In 27 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
particular, the value, of "engineering, development, art work, design work, and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in India and necessary for the production of the imported goods" requires to be added.
(c) The Rule permits inclusion of only engineering drawing, design, etc., "necessary for the production of the imported goods". Rule does not envisage remote connection between "engineering drawing, design, etc." and "the imported goods". The gap between Basic Engineering Drawings and detailed drawing is vast. The one provides all the detailed inputs for undertaking manufacture. The other merely indicates the lay out, relative size etc. From the size specifications alone construction of engineering equipment is not feasible.
"Telling the manufacturer, the specification of what is being ordered" is only in the nature of buyers' assist. Cost incurred towards buyers' assist cannot be included in the value of imported goods.
(d) When the technical know-how and engineering services are not related to the equipment designs but are for the purpose of preparation of tender documents and for recommending for selection of the equipments the cost of the same cannot be included in the value of imported goods."
(emphasis supplied)
41. The same view was taken by the Tribunal in G.E. Plastics India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-I16 and the observations are as follows:
"6. It is the Revenue's case that the
16. 2004 (169) E.L.T. 46 (Tri. - Del.) 28 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
process diagram and equipment specification supplied by M/s. GE Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. BV, Netherlands were vital for the preparation of detailed engineering drawings for the manufacture of the imported equipment and that is sufficient to attract the provisions of the Rule. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the enquiry documents were prepared on the basis of Basic Engineering Package. This reasoning of the Commissioner is not supported by the Rule. Rule does not take in such remote connection. The Rule permits inclusion of only engineering drawings, designs etc. "necessary for the production of the imported goods". That is to say, the material in question should be directly necessary for the production of the imported goods. The gap between Basic Engineering Drawings and detailed drawing is vast. The one provides all the detailed inputs for undertaking manufacture. The other merely indicates the lay out, relative size etc. From the size specifications alone construction of engineering equipment is not feasible. From a perusal of the process chart, it is clear that it only indicated the layout and volume specifications of individual equipment. It is merely a sketch representation of the plant. It was not possible to manufacture equipment based on this. Further, if it were to be so, the appellant would not engage another engineering firm, namely, Davy Power Gas India Pvt. Ltd. for developing the detailed design/engineering drawing. *****"
(emphasis supplied)
42. In the present case, Maruti provided specifications of the parts or components to be fitted in the motor vehicles manufactured by Maruti to the potential vendors. The parts or components have necessarily to be manufactured as per the requisite dimensions of the parts or components so that they can be fitted in the vehicles 29 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
manufactured by Maruti. It is for this reason that Maruti shared the requirements at the 'Request for Quotation' stage. The detailed drawings and designs were prepared by the Research and Development Division of the appellant with the help of technical support received from Denso, Japan. Maruti does not have the necessary technology to manufacture the products. As such, the technology has been patented by the parent company of the appellant, namely Denso, Japan for which the appellant has also been paying running royalty amount for receipt of technical support. The appellant has also included the cost incurred towards preparation of detailed drawings and designs in the assessable value of the final products.
43. To appreciate this issue, reference can also be made to the specifications provided by Maruti to the potential vendors for 'generator assembly' for manufacture of alternators. It bears the endorsement 'THIS IS A DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS DRAWING'. It is also mentioned that 'this drawing specifies the conditions that Suzuki requires from suppliers on shape, dimensions, functions, qualities etc., part(s)/assembly' and 'suppliers shall be responsible for designing the part(s)/assembly to meet Suzuki's requirements shown in the drawing without infringing upon any third party's intellectual property rights and submit the drawing'.
44. It is apparent from the aforesaid that the specifications provided by the Maruti were merely layout or dimensions of the desired parts or components. The appellant prepared detailed drawings and designs for alternator assembly in line with the specifications provided by Maruti. The designs prepared by the appellant contain details of various elements to be used in the 30 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
manufacture of alternator assembly. It contains 23 sub-components required for manufacturing alternator assembly, which is not even referred to in the specification drawings provided by Maruti to the appellant.
45. The Letter of Intent issued to the appellant also states that:
"We are pleased to inform that you have been selected as one of our vendors for the following components. We intend placing an order on you for the design, manufacture, testing and supply of the subject component(s) for MARUTI vehicles at prices indicated below. *****"
(emphasis supplied)
46. This would show that it is the responsibility of the appellant to design and manufacture the parts or components. Thus, the specification drawings are neither used in the production of the components nor are they necessary for the production of the components. Rule 6 of the 2000 Valuation Rules is, therefore, not attracted.
47. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Tribunal in TATA Motors and Avtec Ltd. These decisions deal with cases of drawings supplied by the motor vehicle manufacturers to the manufacturers of parts and components free of cost, but the designs were supplied after the sale agreement was executed and the manufacturer used the same for producing the components. There is nothing in these decisions which may indicate that the specification drawings were supplied at the stage of tender process and identification of vendors, nor does it transpire from the said decisions that after receipt of specification from buyer, the vendors prepared 31 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
their own detail drawings and designs on the basis of which the final components were manufactured.
48. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Moriroku. This judgment of the Supreme Court does not come to the aid of the department. The said judgment deals with the provisions of UP VAT Act for levy of VAT on the sale of goods. The issue that arose before the Supreme Court was whether amortization cost of toolings was includible in the sale price of auto components, as in the case of excise duty under Central Excise Act, 1944. In other words, the issue was whether the department was right in equating sales tax to excise duty.
49. The present appeals do not relate to toolings being supplied free of cost by Maruti to the appellant. In fact, the show cause notice also admits that tooling cost has been amortised and excise duty has been paid.
50. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, that follows from the aforesaid discussion is that the notional cost of drawings and designs supplied free of cost by Maruti to the vendors cannot be included in the assessable value of the parts and components manufactured by vendors and cleared to Maruti for the purpose of payment of central excise duty.
51. In this view of the matter, it would not be necessary to examine the contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
32
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
52. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, all the Excise Appeals have to be allowed. The five Excise Appeals filed by traders have also to be allowed for the additional reason that in any view of the matter central excise duty could not have been levied on them.
53. In the result, the impugned orders dated 29.07.2022, 25.08.2022, 30.11.2022, 30.12.2022, 10.01.2023, 23.02.2023, 30.03.2023 and 28.04.2023 passed by the adjudicating authority deserve to be set aside and are set aside. All the Excise Appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
(Order Pronounced on 12.03.2024) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (P.V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Golay, Shreya, Jyoti 33 E/52419/2022 & ORS.
Cause Appeal No. Duty Show Cause Period of Period time barred Duty demand
list sl. demand Notice dated dispute in confirmed for
no. confirmed Appeal the normal
(in Rs.) period (in
Rs.)
Order dated 29.07.2022
7 E/52247/2022 38,845 21.02.2019 April 2013 Upto January 2017 2,229
to (April 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond 5 years)
8 E/52248/2022 2,05,782 10.01.2020 April 2014 Upto June 2017 -
to (April 2014 to
June 2017 December 2014 is
beyond 5 years)
9 E/52249/2022 24,86,810 07.02.2019 April 2013 Upto January 2017 1,68,243
to (April 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond 5 years)
10 E/52250/2022 1,28,108 20.02.2019 April 2013 Upto January 2017 8,703
to (April 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond 5 years)
11 E/52251/2022 1,60,278 18.12.2019 April 2014 Upto June 2017 -
to (April 2014 to
June 2017 November 2014 is
beyond 5 years)
12 E/52252/2022 16,65,508 02.05.2019 April 2014 Upto March 2017 44,932
to
June 2017
13 E/52256/2022 17,84,785 12.03.2019 April 2013 Upto February 2017 68,266
to (April 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond 5 years)
14 E/52255/2022 2,67,542 01.05.2019 April 2014 Upto March 2017 10,013
to
June 2017
15 E/5225/2022 1,10,211 11.03.2019 April 2014 Upto February 2017 7,346
to
June 2017
16 E/52257/2022 41,31,011 22.05.2019 April 2014 Upto February 2017 65,287
to (April 2014 is
June 2017 beyond 5 years)
17 E/52258/2022 2,59,616 20.02.2019 April 2013 Upto January 2017 12,272
to (April 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond 5 years)
18 E/52267/2022 4,13,244 04.02.2019 April 2013 Upto December 33,465
to 2016
June 2017 (April 2013 to
December 2013 is
beyond 5 years)
34
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
19 E/52268/2022 5,42,146 24.01.2019 April 2013 Upto December 62,260
to 2016
June 2017 (April 2013 to
December 2013 is
beyond 5 years)
20 E/52273/2022 13,719 18.02.2019 April 2013 Upto January 2017 1,190
to (April 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond 5 years)
21 E/52296/2022
22 E/52297/2022 4,07,970 25.04.2019 April 2014 Upto March 2017 12,859
to
June 2017
23 E/52298/2022 6,61,105 06.08.2019 April 2014 Upto June 2017 -
to (April 2014 to July
June 2017 2014 is beyond 5
years)
24 E/52299/2022
80 E/50004/2023 56,118 24.05.2019 April 2014 Upto April 2017 4,621
to (April 2014 is
June 2017 beyond 5 years)
Order dated 25.08.2022
25 E/52389/2022 13,45,531 13.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 1,17,360
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
26 E/52390/2022 15,39,175 12.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 1,43,180
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
27 E/52391/2022 49,41,104 05.03.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 4,41,970
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
28 E/52392/2022 34,60,002 09.05.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 1,70,690
to
June 2017
29 E/52393/2022 1,21,29,234 04.02.2019 November 2013 Up to December 10,74,560
to 2016 (November
June 2017 2013 to December
2013 is beyond five
years)
30 E/52394/2022 1,14,758 01.02.2019 April 2017 Not applicable 1,14,758
to
June 2017
31 E/52395/2022 1,51,33,338 12.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 13,33,940
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
32 E/52396/2022 1,68,60,063 01.02.2019 November 2013 Up to December 12,86,858
to 2016 (November
June 2017 2013 to December
2013 is beyond five
years)
35
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
33 E/52397/2022 41,70,890 01.02.2019 November 2013 Up to December 4,13,578
to 2016 (November
June 2017 2013 to December
2013 is beyond five
years)
34 E/52398/2023 22,92,994 09.05.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 75,186
to
June 2017
35 E/52399/2022 49,97,368 08.02.2019 November 2013 Up to December 3,46,885
to 2016 (November
June 2017 2013 to December
2013 is beyond five
years)
36 E/52400/2022 19,35,238 25.04.2019 November 2013 Up to March 2017 56,733
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 March 2014 is
beyond five years)
37 E/52406/2022 3,45,043 09.05.2019 April 2014 Not applicable Not applicable
to
June 2017
38 E/52407/2022 4,59,176 27.03.2019 November 2013 Up to February 2017 36,672
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
39 E/52408/2022 2,50,771 23.08.2019 April 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to (April 2014 to July barred
June 2017 2014 is beyond five
years)
40 E/52409/2022 9,70,706 14.05.2019 April 2014 Up to April 2017 35,496
to (April 2014 is
June 2017 beyond five years)
41 E/52410/2022 2,77,508 21.05.2019 April 2014 Up to April 2017 7,360
to (April 2014 is
June 2017 beyond five years)
42 E/52411/2022 6,28,075 12.02.2019 December 2013 Not Applicable Not Applicable
to
June 2017
43 E/52412/2022 22,63,904 21.06.2019 April 2014 Up to May 2017 54,860
to (April 2014 to May
June 2017 2014 is beyond five
years)
44 E/52413/2022 13,59,227 21.05.2019 April 2014 Up to April 2017 29,500
to (April 2014 is
June 2017 beyond five years)
45 E/52414/2022 2,57,261 07.05.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 12,035
to
June 2017
46 E/52415/2022 11,83,422 15.02.2019 November Up to January 2017 48,615
2013 to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
36
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
47 E/52416/2022 15,53,094 03.04.2019 April 2013 Up to February 2017 82,487
to (April 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
48 E/52417/2022 11,50,215 04.06.2019 April 2014 Up to April 2017 28,716
to (April 2014 is
June 2017 beyond five years)
49 E/52418/2022 2,61,995 15.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 26,138
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
50 E/52419/2022 60,60,640 19.03.2019 November 2013 Up to February 2017 3,91,003
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
51 E/52420/2022 6,90,826 20.03.2019 November 2013 Up to February 2017 46,965
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
52 E/52421/2022 9,82,679 12.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 25,675
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
53 E/52422/2022 11,98,140 12.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 1,10,201
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
54 E/52423/2022 28,12,870 21.05.2019 April 2014 Up to April 2017 87,629
to (April 2014 is
June 2017 beyond five years)
55 E/52424/2022 14,90,800 13.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 77,864
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
56 E/52425/2022 45,28,757 12.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 3,20,412
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
57 E/52426/2022 26,18,362 29.05.2019 April 2014 Up to April 2017 66,829
to (April 2014 is
June 2017 beyond five years)
58 E/52427/2022 1,90,188 07.05.2019 October 2015 Not Applicable Not Applicable
to
June 2017
59 E/52428/2022 2,97,236 22.05.2019 April 2014 Up to April 2017 9,536
to (April 2014 is
June 2017 beyond five years)
60 E/52429/2022 49,68,377 25.01.2019 November 2013 Up to December 4,16,136
to 2016 (November
June 2017 2013 to December
2013 is beyond five
years)
61 E/52430/2022 5,69,222 04.02.2019 November 2013 Up to December 62,039
to 2016 (November
June 2017 2013 to December
37
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
2013 is beyond five
years)
62 E/52431/2022 9,68,265 09.01.2020 April 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to (April 2014 to barred
June 2017 November 2014 is
beyond five years)
63 E/52432/2022 19,69,949 10.01.2020 April 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to (April 2014 to barred
June 2017 November 2014 is
beyond five years)
64 E/52433/2022 7,74,844 12.02.2019 November Up to January 2017 63,201
2013 to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
65 E/52434/2022 5,74,808 18.03.2019 November 2013 Up to February 2017 29,238
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
66 E/52435/2022 2,97,464 18.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 36,883
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
67 E/52436/2022 7,27,679 14.03.2019 November 2013 Up to February 2017 26,999
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
68 E/52437/2022 35,46,582 18.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 2,82,041
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
69 E/52438/2022 63,08,051 21.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 5,09,090
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
70 E/52439/2022 23,18,738 14.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 1,68,206
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
71 E/52440/2022 2,20,397 12.03.2019 April 2013 Up to February 2017 17,247
to (April 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
72 E/52441/2022 11,23,525 13.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 99,578
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
73 E/52442/2022 1,48,46,572 09.10.2019 April 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to (April 2014 to barred
June 2017 August 2014 is
beyond five years)
74 E/52443/2022 40,22,196 12.03.2019 November 2013 Up to February 2017 13,09,220
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
38
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
75 E/52444/2022 12,17,706 25.01.2019 November Up to December 1,62,489
2013 to 2016 (November
June 2017 2013 to December
2013 beyond five
years)
76 E/52445/2022 11,80,262 11.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 1,50,198
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
77 E/52470/2022 3,81,1096 12.03.2019 April 2012
to
June 2017
78 E/52471/2022 6,80,707 18.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 49,835
to (November 2013 to
January 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
79 E/52472/2022 10,30,308 14.05.2019 April 2014 Not Applicable Not Applicable
to
June 2017
81 E/50028/2023 10,18,587 03.05.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 49,919
to
June 2017
82 E/50044/2023 9,30,970 07.02.2019 November 2013 Up to December 92,595
to 2016 (November
June 2017 2013 to December
2013 is beyond five
years) )
83 E/50055/2023 15,36,099 05.03.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 1,17,271
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
84 E/50056/2023 3,11,032 25.04.2019 November 2013 Up to March 2017 9,740
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 March 2014 is
beyond five years)
85 E/51271/2023 5,59,904 04.04.2019 November 2013 Up to February 2017 37,365
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
86 E/51272/2023 3,03,973 14.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 22,190
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
87 E/51273/2023 6,59,513 07.05.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 25,346
to
June 2017
88 E/51274/2023 81,14,928 21.05.2019 November 2013 Up to April 2017 2,39,410
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 April 2014 is beyond
five years)
89 E/51275/2023 2,69,740 11.06.2019 April 2014 Up to May 2017 28,746
to (April 2014 to May
June 2017 2014 is beyond five
years)
90 E/51276/2023 16,14,111 14.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 1,51,533
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
91 E/51277/2023 8,12,718 14.08.2019 October 2015 to Entirely time barred Entirely time
June 2017 barred
92 E/51729/2023 10,58,804 12.03.2019 April 2013 Up to February 2017 66,151
39
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
to (April 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
109 E/51985/2023 98,086 14.08.2019 April 2014 Not Applicable Not Applicable
to
June 2017
167 E/53920/2023 17,16,606 16.08.2019 April 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
168 E/53921/2023 25,50,552 19.03.2019 November 2013 Up to February 2017 1,32,848
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
169 E/53922/2023 8,31,272 19.03.2019 November 2013 Up to February 2017 62,980
to (November 2013 to
June 2017 February 2014 is
beyond five years)
Order dated 30.11.2022
93 E/51739/2023 74,16,063 06.02.2019 January 2014 Upto January 2017 4,76,179
to (Januray 2014 is
June 2017 beyond 5 years)
94 E/51952/2023 2,74,361 06.08.2019 July 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
95 E/51953/2023 87,496 21.01.2020 January 2015 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
96 E/51954/2023 35,31,420 11.04.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 2,03,132
to
June 2017
97 E/51955/2023 5,59,697 19.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 49,355
(5,53,340 + to
6,357) June 2017
98 E/51956/2023 21,34,631 0 March 2014 Up to February 2017 1,03,692
(21,21,414 to
+ 13,217) June 2017
99 E/51957/2023 14,62,220 01.02.2019 April 2015 Up to December 4,15,869
to 2016
June 2017
100 E/51958/2023 3,61,906 05.03.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 26,632
(3,58,044 + to
3,862) June 2017
101 E/51959/2023 22,11,423 14.05.2019 May 2014 Up to April 2017 63,295
to
June 2017
102 E/51960/2023 19,38,124 19.03.2019 March 2014 Up to February 2017 1,05,865
(19,25,809 to
+ 12,315) June 2017
103 E/51961/2023 2,05,580 24.05.2019 May 2014 Up to April 2017 1,121
to
June 2017
40
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
104 E/51962/2023 16,34,346 23.05.2019 May 2014 Up to April 2017 52,290
to
June 2017
105 E/51963/2023 2,04,36,353 01.02.2019 January 2014 Up to December 19,15,854
(2,00,63,450 to 2016
+ 3,73,203) June 2017
106 E/51964/2023 55,61,303 13.03.2019 March 2014 Up to February 2017 3,08,104
(55,25,479 to
+ 35,824) June 2017
107 E/51965/2023 2,81,518 20.03.2019 February 2014 Up to February 2017 14,832
(2,76,247 + to
5,271) June 2017
108 E/51966/2023 74,27,270 06.02.2019 January 2014 Up to December 7,30,472
(73,07,155 to 2016
+ 1,20,115) June 2017
110 E/52481/2023 62,646 21.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 6,964
(62,601 + to
45) June 2017
111 E/52482/2023 3,24,015 11.04.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 16,302
to
June 2017
112 E/52483/2023 1,30,392 18.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 11,560
(1,28,668 + to
1,724) June 2017
113 E/MISC/50591/ 2,89,310 04.04.2019 March 2014 Up to February 2017 16,792
2023 (2,87,332 + to
E/52484/2023 1,978) June 2017
114 E/52485/2023 49,71,727 13.03.2019 March 2014 Up to February 2017 2,84,566
(49,40,756 to
+ 30,516) June 2017
115 E/52486/2023 7,90,202 14.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 80,911
(7,80,503 + to
9,699) June 2017
116 E/52487/2023 19,21,841 12.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 1,47,304
(18,99,945 to
+ 21,896) June 2017
117 E/52488/2023 1,612 10.06.2019 June 2014 Up to April 2017 72
to
June 2017
118 E/52489/2023 20,98,624 14.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 1,15,431
(20,70,262 to
+ 28,362) June 2017
119 E/52490/2023 1,14,127 07.03.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 9,081
(1,11,705 + to
2,422) June 2017
120 E/52491/2023 1,86,049 16.08.2019 August 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
41
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
121 E/52492/2023 8,01,374 13.01.2020 January 2015 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
122 E/52632/2023 77,56,201 11.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 6,75,962
(76,73,597 to
+ 82,604) June 2017
123 E/52637/2023 1,73,141 08.04.2019 March 2014 Up to February 2017 14,747
(1,72,685 + to
456) June 2017
124 E/52638/2023 2,24,603 19.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 12,398
(2,21,387 + to (November 2013 to
3,216) June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
125 E/52639/2023 4,96,499 11.09.2019 April 2015 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
126 E/52640/2023 13,53,376 01.02.2019 January 2014 Up to December 82,971
(13,15,974 to 2016
+ 37,402) June 2017
127 E/52641/2023
128 E/52642/2023 1,06,21,306 01.02.2019 January 201 Up to January 2017 8,18,308
(1,04,40,683 to (November 2013 to
+ 1,80,623) June 2017 January 2014 is
beyond five years)
129 E/52643/2023 17,89,486 12.03.2019 March 2014 Up to February 2017 82,656
(17,77,772 to
+ 11,714) June 2017
130 E/52644/2023 4,53,967 14.03.2019 March 2014 Up to February 2017 43,110
(4,53,420 + to
547) June 2017
131 E/52645/2023 17,57,789 22.08.2019 August 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
132 E/52872/2023 7,57,468 23.08.2019 August 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
134 E/52874/2023 1,28,005 09.05.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 12,414
to
June 2017
135 E/52875/2023 7,82,092 19.08.2019 August 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
136 E/52876/2023 14,83,153 13.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 1,32,118
(14,66,710 to
+ 16,443) June 2017
137 E/52877/2023 70,34,455 28.01.2019 January 2014 Up to December 6,14,115
(68,82,479 to 2016
+ 1,51,979) June 2017
170 E/54676/2023 26,27,467 20.02.2019 November 2013 Up to January 2017 3,15,619
(26,03,969 to
+ 23,498) June 2017
171 E/54744/2023 9,73,637 14.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 81,083
(9,63,787 + to
9,850) June 2017
172 E/54746/2023 66,63,317 02.01.2019 January 2014 Up to November 6,63,648
(65,65,910 to 2016
+ 97,407) June 2017
174 E/54969/2023 15,15,040 21.05.2019 May 2014 Up to April 2017 75,622
to
42
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
June 2017
175 E/54970/2023 12,68,677 01.02.2019 February 2014 Up to December 1,35,821
(12,60,617 to 2016
+ 8,060) June 2017
Order dated 30.12.2022
138 E/53887/2023
139 E/53888/2023 16,72,219 26.11.2019 November 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
140 E/53889/2023 80,149 08.04.2019 April 2014 Up to February 2017 13,851
to
June 2017
141 E/53890/2023 18,55,437 02.02.2019 January 2014 Up to December 2,72,822
(18,39,185 to 2016
+ 16,252) June 2017
142 E/53891/2023 44,989 15.05.2019 September Up to April 2017 5,168
2015
to
June 2017
143 E/53892/2023 3,64,195 20.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 26.328
(3,59,892 + to
4,303) June 2017
144 E/53893/2023 12,74,442 09.10.2019 October 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
145 E/53894/2023 23,49,639 14.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 1,66,678
(23,24,304 to
+ 25,335) June 2017
146 E/53895/2023 81,39,708 01.02.2019 February 2014 Up to December 7,69,469
(80,46,778 to 2016
+ 92,930) June 2017
147 E/MISC/50543/ 1,04,15,049 28.01.2019 January 2014 Up to December 12,76,120
2023 (1,02,24,291 to 2016
E/53896/2023 + 1,90,758) June 2017
148 E/MISC/50541/ 54,64,448 28.01.2019 January 2014 Up to December 6,18,855
2023 (54,01,970 to 2016
E/53897/2023 + 62,478) June 2017
149 E/53898/2023 31,16,816 20.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 2,75,876
(30,84,711 to
+ 32,105) June 2017
150 E/53899/2023 36,84,119 14.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 3,14,014
(36,55,337 to
+ 28,782) June 2017
151 E/53900/2023 15,56,095 16.08.2019 August 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
152 E/53901/2023 22,58,708 28.03.2019 March 2014 Up to February 2017 1,26,103
(22,42,116 to
+ 16,592) June 2017
153 E/53902/2023 7,58,596 14.05.2019 May 2014 Up to April 2017 17,733
to
June 2017
154 E/53903/2023 8,80,309 07.05.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 72,000
to
June 2017
155 E/53904/2023 14,78,830 20.04.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 77,161
to
June 2017
156 E/53905/2023 5,88,873 08.02.2019 January 2014 Up to December 56,758
(5,78,697 + to 2016
10,176) June 2017
157 E/53906/2023 77,235 19.02.2019 January 2014 Up to January 2017 4,910
(74,925 + to
43
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
2,310) June 2017
158 E/53907/2023 26,35,297 25.11.2019 November 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
159 E/53908/2023 1,31,39,051 04.02.2019 January 2014 Up to December 12,45,838
(1,29,32,475 to 2016
+ 2,06,576) June 2017
160 E/53909/2023 2,07,657 11.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 18,761
(2,05,289 + to
2,368) June 2017
161 E/53910/2023 32,76,430 11.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 2,88,609
(32,48,467 to
+ 27,963) June 2017
162 E/MISC/50542/ 1,53,80,656 28.01.2019 January 2014 Up to December 13,47,988
2023 (1,50,90,471 to 2016
E/53911/2023 + 2,90,185) June 2017
163 E/53912/2023 4,21,981 22.08.2019 August 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
164 E/53913/2023 3,50,702 06.03.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 22,527
(3,46,780 + to
3,922) June 2017
165 E/53914/2023 91,722 16.08.2019 August 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
166 E/53915/2023 4,08,487 30.12.2019 December 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
173 E/54968/2023 8,94,863 18.11.2019 November 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
176 E/54971/2023 15,14,065 16.08.2019 August 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
190 E/55092/2023 7,02,086 06.02.2020 January 2015 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
194 E/55262/2023 3,56,650 03.10.2019 September Entirely time barred Entirely time
2014 barred
to
June 2017
195 E/55264/2023
202 E/55366/2023 7,06,806 06.03.2019 December 2013 Up to January 2017 62,350
(6,84,815 + to
21,991) June 2017
Order dated 10.01.2023
204 E/54767/2023
205 E/54799/2023
Order dated 23.02.2023
177 E/54985/2023 1,18,091 16.12.2019 December 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
June 2017
180 E/54994/2023 3,94,450 05.03.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 29,386
(3,90,239 + to
4,211) June 2017
181 E/54995/2023 1,83,478 15.06.2019 February 2014 Up to May 2017 6,152
(1,81,069 + to
2,409) June 2017
182 E/54996/2023 8,06,854 08.05.2019 May 2014 Up to March 2017 58,885
to
June 2017
44
E/52419/2022 & ORS.
183 E/54997/2023 6,34,806 20.05.2019 May 2014 Up to April 2017 17,917
to
June 2017
184 E/54998/2023 8,44,865 14.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 63,095
(8,35,998 + to
8,867) June 2017
185 E/54999/2023 10,95,471 07.05.2019 April 2014 Up to March 2017 48,746
to
June 2017
187 E/55001/2023 17,42,912 18.02.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 1,38,363
(17,20,083 to
+ 22,829) June 2017
189 E/55042/2023 2,03,216 14.05.2019 May 2014 Up to April 2017 9,386
to
June 2017
191 E/55093/2023
192 E/55107/2023 2,71,619 17.12.2019 December 2014 Entirely time barred Entirely time
to barred
August 2016
Order dated 13.03.2023
178 E/54992/2023
186 E/55000/2023 34,05,288 21.05.2019 May 2014 Upto April 2017 67,440
to
June 2017
188 E/55038/2023 7,84,963 September, September Upto June 2017 -
2019 2014
to
June 2017
Order dated 28.04.2023
197 E/55313/2023 1,26,724 07.03.2019 February 2014 Up to January 2017 10,857
to
June 2017
198 E/55317/2023
199 E/55318/2023
200 E/55319/2023
201 E/55328/2023