TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dle Bar Body', crank case clutch and casting used as motor vehicle parts classifiable under sub-heading 8708.00 and 8714.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. M/s BAL was supplying the inputs (Aluminium Ingots) after purchasing the same from other manufacturers to AECL for the relevant period under the cover of invoices issued under Rule 57F(2) and Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after reversing the MODVAT credit availed on the said inputs. 4. A show-cause notice dated 5.3.2001 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad, wherein it was alleged that AECL was receiving inputs from BAL which under-valued the landed cost by not including expenses on account of Sales Tax, freight, insurance, loading/unloading charges and handling charges and that BAL was charging only the basic price of such inputs equal to basic price charged by the original manufacturer of the said inputs to BAL. Since the additional cost of loading/unloading, freight, insurance etc. were not included in the inputs supplied to AECL, there was consequential reduction in landed cost of such inputs. It was also alleged that the price charged by BAL was depressed prices although the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AL while clearing the goods to M/s AECL. In fact, against the said goods, the commercial invoices so issued by M/s BAL to M/s AECL is @Rs78.25 per kg and in the invoices, freight and Sales tax have been charged extra. Therefore, the allegation made in the show-cause notice is baseless. Therefore, the show-cause notice is not sustainable as the same is based on wrong facts and prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned SDR submitted that as per invoices dated 21.9.1998, the commercial invoice was not supplied by the appellants to the investigating authority. Therefore, the investigating authority has arrived at the conclusion in the show-cause notice that the value has been suppressed by BAL while clearing the Aluminium Ingots to M/s AECL. Hence, the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demand. Therefore, the impugned order is to be upheld. 7. Heard and considered. 8. This matter was finally heard by this Bench on 12.04.2011 and reserved for pronouncement of order on 29.4.2011. Both the parties sought time to file the written submission. On 27.4.2011, the learned DR filed his written submissions, which are also taken on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1944 which was operative during the material time, the assessee was required to furnish a certificate on the invoice indicating that the price shown in the invoice was correct and that there was no additional consideration directly or indirectly. Even the impugned Central Excise invoice Dt. 21.09.1998 is also containing such certification by M/s. Bajaj Auto,. Thus the certificate issued under the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1994 as statutorily required, read with the depositions given by Shri Ranjit Gupta. Vice President of M/s Bajaj Ltd. Under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act 1944 (in this statement dated 16.08.1999) shows that the calculation made during the investigations/SCN were as per their own declaration. In case there was a commercial invoice with a different transaction value, as clamed by the Appellant it supported department's allegation of mis-declartion of relevant fact of the department, for which M/s. Bajaj Auto liable to be penalized. 5. Further production of Commercial invoice alone is not sufficient. The veracity of the Commercial invoice and the transaction value mentioned therein can be confirmed only on verification of ledger ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purchase of Aluminium Ingots from Original Mfrs. = Rs. 83,042/- (b) Less discount = Rs. 500/- per M.T. (c) Less Excise duty = Rs. 10,832/- (d) Net Price ( a - b ) = Rs. 71,710/- (e) Freight charges from M/s. Bal to M/s. AECL @ 1% = Rs. 717/- (f) Loading/ unloading charges @ 5% = Rs. 3,585/- (g) Profit of M/s. BAL @ 10% = Rs. 7,170/- (h) Total Price of Alu. Ingots ( d + e + f + g ) = Rs. 83,182/- (i) Price charged to M/s. AECL by M/s. BAL = Rs. 69,144/- (j) Difference in price ( h - i ) = Rs. 14,038/- (k) Difference in percentage = 20% approx. 11. In the written submissions, the appellants have also filed an Invoice issued by National Aluminum Company Ltd. on the basis of which value of Rs.71.71 per kg was arrived at by the department and as per the Annexure-B of the written submission dated 2.4.2002, it was mentioned that the commercial invoice has been issued @ Rs.78.25 per kg shown wherein Sales Tax and freight are shown separately. Annexure-B of the written submissions is reproduced herein for better appreciation: - CALCULATION OF COST OF ALUMINIUM ALLOY PURCHASED FROM NALCO INVOICE NO 357 DATED....