2013 (9) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Party   Demand of Excise Duty   RE-QUANTIFIED DEMAND OF EXCISE DUTY PENALTY   01.   E/S/99/10 (E-81/10) TATA MOTORS   NA   NA   10,00,00,000/-   02.   E/S/206/10 (E/179/10) HYVA INDIA   11,43,11,352/-   2,11,26,882/-   11,43,11,352/-   03.   E/S/299/12 (E/170/12) TATA MOTORS   NA   NA   4,18,12,665/-   04.   E/S/300/12 (E/171/12) DHANU KUMAR   NA   NA   15,00,000/-   05.   E/S/407/12 (E/249/12) UTKAL AUTOMOBILE 15,64,61,604/-   2,05,33,991/-   15,64,61,604/-   06.   E/S/421/12 (E/258/12) TATA MOTORS   NA   NA   1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  NA   NA   10,00,000/-   21.   E/S/612/12 (E/366/12) DHANU KUMAR   NA   NA   20,000/-   22.   E/S/615/12 (E/369/12) TATA MOTORS   NA   NA   1,21,11,153/-   23.   E/616/12 (E/370/12) J.KRISHNASWAMI   NA   NA   12,00,000/-   24.   E/617/12 (E/371/12) DHANU KUMAR   NA NA 60,000/-   TOTAL 49,72,77,697.22 7,43,52,503.22 100,25,85,996.22   2. The Ld. Sr. Advocate Shri V. Sreedharan narrating the facts in brief, which are common in all these application, submitted that M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. had supplied duty-paid chassis, to M/s Hyva India Ltd. and other body builders, for buildin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court were not correctly applied and hence the same is not a good law. 2.2 Further, for the present purpose the Ld. Advocate has submitted that the differential excise duty has been determined by taking into consideration the price at which the vehicles were sold by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. from respective RSOs considering the same as assessable value, instead of cum duty price as prescribed under the Explanation to Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Ld. Advocate drew our attention to a detailed affidavit filed by the respective applicants in support of this fact. According to the Ld. Advocate, if the value at which the goods are sold by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. is taken as cum-duty price, the en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er he has submitted that the present demand had been raised on the differential value and hence the circumstances, cannot be compared to that of clandestine removal of goods cleared without payment of duty. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. We find that the present issue apparently covered by two judgements of this Tribunal in Audi Automobiles case as well as Hyva Motor's case (supra). Ld. Sr. Advocate has made an extensive argument bringing out the anomalies in these judgements and submitted that the observation in the judgements are contrary to the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and hence cannot be relied upon. We find the issue is a daba table one, and as rightly pointed out by th....