https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76110 CESTAT, New Delhi held that firms undertaking body fabrication and mounting on chassis supplied free by the chassis manufacturer were performing job work within the meaning of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, not valuation under Rule 6. The appellants' failure to produce written agreements meant they could not exclude application of Rule 10A, though no adverse inference for suppression was drawn. The demand for duty and interest under Rule 10A was sustained, but penalties were set aside; appeals succeed only to the extent of quashing penalties. en-us Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Nov 2025 17:59:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76110 CESTAT, New Delhi held that firms undertaking body fabrication and mounting on chassis supplied free by the chassis manufacturer were performing job work within the meaning of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, not valuation under Rule 6. The appellants' failure to produce written agreements meant they could not exclude application of Rule 10A, though no adverse inference for suppression was drawn. The demand for duty and interest under Rule 10A was sustained, but penalties were set aside; appeals succeed only to the extent of quashing penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76110