2011 (4) TMI 1112 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants stay in automotive parts cost case, stresses revenue-neutrality and fair assessment

The Tribunal allowed the stay petition in favor of the appellants in a case involving the inclusion of drawing and design charges in the cost of ... Cost of drawing and design charges - Tribunal took a view that on merits the cost of drawing and design worked out @ 0.85% by Tata Motors is includable by the vendors. Therefore, the decision on which the learned counsel has relied upon goes against them on merits.  Further, as regards the revenue-neutrality, the decision is in their favour – Held that:- decision of the Tribunal cited by the learned counsel was not considered by the lower authorities and the show-cause notice also does not give break up of the duty demanded we consider it appropriate that the stay petition has to be allowed, stay petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority Issues:- Inclusion of drawing and design charges in the cost of automotive parts- Invocation of extended period for confirming duty demand and imposing penalty- Consideration of Tribunal decision in the caseIssue 1: Inclusion of drawing and design chargesThe appellants, engaged in manufacturing automotive parts for a specific company, faced a duty demand due to the exclusion of drawing and design charges in the cost of supplied parts. The counsel argued that duty paid was available as CENVAT credit to the company, indicating no intention to evade payment. The Tribunal's previous decision stated that the cost of drawing and design should be included by the vendors, contradicting the appellant's stance. However, the decision favored the appellants on the aspect of revenue-neutrality. Due to the absence of proper break-up in the show-cause notice and the non-consideration of the Tribunal decision by lower authorities, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority.Issue 2: Invocation of extended periodThe appellants argued against the invocation of the extended period for confirming duty demand and imposing penalties, citing the revenue-neutral nature of the situation. The Tribunal considered the absence of the Tribunal decision in the lower authorities' consideration and the lack of a proper break-up in the show-cause notice. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition, emphasizing the need for a reevaluation by the adjudicating authority after considering the relevant decisions presented by the appellants.Issue 3: Consideration of Tribunal decisionThe Tribunal highlighted the significance of the Tribunal decision in a similar case, emphasizing the need for a proper assessment based on the decision's implications. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue in light of the cited decision and any additional submissions by the appellants, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case before a new order is passed. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter indicated the importance of a comprehensive review based on all relevant legal precedents and arguments presented.