Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Auto Vision India Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 2 December, 2014
IN THE CUSPTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/ Decision:2.12.2014
E/Stay/50845 of 2014 in Appeal No.50689/2014-EX(DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.584/SVS/GGN/2013 dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III)
M/s.Auto Vision India Pvt. Ltd . Appellants 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 the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Appearance: Rep. by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR for the respondent.
CORAM: Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No.54792/2014 Dated:2.12.2014 Per Archana Wadhwa:
The dispute in the present appeal relates to the valuation of the appellants final product, which is components of motor vehicles, which they were clearing to their sister concern.
2. After hearing both the sides for sometime, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the appellant did not submit CAS-4 certificate so as to finalise the assessable value of the appellants final product. On the other hand, it is appellants contention that they were discharging duty liability on 110% of the cost of production and in support of their contention, they have produced on record various invoices, etc. along with the Cost Accountants certificate. As such, it is their contention that the finding of fact arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) is factually incorrect.
3. We have seen the grounds of appeal raised before the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the appellant have categorically submitted that the CAS-4 certificate to the fact that the sale of components to the related party was to the tune of 110% to 115% of the cost price. Actually, it was the grievance of the appellant that even the said certificate was produced before the original adjudicating authority, the same was not considered by him.
4. Inasmuch as the dispute relates to factual examination, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the matter. If the Revenue desires any other documentary evidences, so as to arrive at any finding of the assessable value of the product being in accordance with CAS-4 formula, they would direct the appellant to do so.
5. The stay petition as also appeal get disposed of in above manner.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1