TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... built on the chassis supplied to them by MNAL and MIL. (iii) The CENVAT credit of duty paid on such chassis was taken by the Appellants. (iv) For the purpose of building body, the appellants purchased various raw materials on their own account and undertook the body building work. (v) They charged a consolidated sales consideration for the body built on the chassis which included the cost of raw materials procured by them; body building costs including the profit margin. (vi) The activity of building body on duty paid chassis amounted to manufacture as per Note 5 to Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (vii) The assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellants has been determined by adding the price of the body plus cost of chassis in terms of Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules. They are paying excise duty on the value determined in the aforesaid manner. (viii) In the above background, the appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 01.05.2008 proposing demand of differential duty of Rs. 3,25,06,378/- @ 1% on the differential value of Rs. 19,08,21,210/- for the period from April 2007 to October, 2007 on the grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n for availing the notification benefit. The Tribunal observed that the term sale or purchase are not defined in the notification and accordingly reference has to be drawn to section 2(h) of the Excise Act. In terms of the said definition, it is sufficient that there is transfer of possession to be considered as purchase and allowed the benefit. (c) The said decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., [2015 (325) ELT 635 (SC)] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the principle laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Ujagar Prints vs. Union of India [1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC)]. (d) Also, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hyva India Pvt Limited [2015 (327) ELT 41 (Bom)] at Para 63 and 64 held that the Court did not render a conclusive opinion when excisable goods are manufactured by a job worker. (e) Valuation rules has to be read with charging section. In the instant case, valuation of goods in terms of section 4(3) (d) of the Excise Act, it is the transaction value that has to be considered. Further, the said provision is sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Being so, the activity for the purpose of valuation would squarely fall under Rule 10A and not under Rule 6. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned order as far as the demand of duty and interest payable thereon from the appellants. Again, in the case of Hyva India Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE, Be/apur [2013 (292) ELT 59 (Tri-Mum)], on similar facts, the Tribunal inter alia held as follows: 14. The ld. Sr. Advocate also relied on the following decisions to prove his case that when the body is sold, it is a sale as per the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 :- 1. Patnaik & Company v. State of Orissa 2. Mackenzies Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 3. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. M.G. Brothers 4. Pothula Subba Rao v. State of A.P. 5. Jiwan Singh & Sons v. State of Punjab 6. Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Haji Abdul Majid & Sons. All these decisions were in respect of dispute with regard to levy of sale tax in respect of body built....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of which the Tribunal held that the second requirement with regard to "on behalf of" was not satisfied in that case and accordingly the case was decided in favour of the assessee. We find that in the present case the appellants are sub-contractors in relation to the body building activity on the chassis. Purchase Order also referred to the expression "sub-contracting" and the appellants had not produced before us any copy of the agreement between the Tata Motors and the appellants. In the absence of any detailed contract as was available in the case of M/s. Innocorp. Ltd. before the Tribunal in that case, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case. 18. We are, therefore, of the view that the decision of the Audi Automobiles cited supra is squarely applicable to the present case before us and accordingly we hold that the value of the goods supplied by the appellants is to be determined under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and not under Rule 6. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the Orders-in-Original with regard to valuation of the goods under Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules. Since the duty is required to be pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y inputs or goods from the principal manufacturer or by any person authorised by him. In other words, no inputs or goods being supplied by the said principal manufacturer or any other person authorised by him the activity cannot be termed as job work within the meaning of the explanation. In that event it would be possible to urge that Rule 10A has no application at all. The case, therefore, should be then processed and dealt with by the rules other than Rule 10A. Even that contention and plea is open and, therefore, we need not express any opinion as to whether the expression "on behalf of" is distinct from the expression "for, or on behalf of". We also, therefore, do not deem it necessary to express any opinion on the fourth and fifth submissions set out in the written submissions. We are of the view that the Revenue's interpretation and which we have accepted does not render the phrase "on behalf of" redundant. If the Rule is read in its entirety with the proviso and the explanation, then we are sure that the applicability of Rule 10A is a matter which can be independently dealt with and depending on the facts and circumstances in each case. Therefore, it is not possible to lay ....