2016 (11) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Central Excise Tariff Act. The dispute is regarding valuation of CNC Gear hobbing machine supplied to their customer M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Pune. The customer had an EPCG license issued by DGFT for import of a similar item at concessional rate of duty. The customer invalidated their EPCG license and got an advance intermediate license issued to the appellant which was used by them to import parts and accessories without payment of duty. The appellant used these parts and accessories and manufactured and cleared the complete CNC machine to M/s. Bajaj Auto. The purchase order placed by the customer revealed that the agreed price was reduced to the extent of the benefit accruing to the appellant by way of import of components at concession....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned advocate for the appellant and Shri J. Harish, learned AR for the Revenue. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant reiterated the arguments and prayed that the appeal should be allowed on the basis of the Larger Bench s decision of the Tribunal in the Reliance Industries case on the ground of revenue neutrality. 5. The learned DR on the other hand supported the impugned order. He submitted that the decision of the apex court in the case of IFGL Refractories case (supra) supports the decision of the authorities below. He further placed reliance on the apex court s decision in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Indoram Synthetics (I) Ltd.: 2015 (323) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.). 6. It is on record that the appellant has supplied CNC machin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Section 4 of the Act as it existed prior to its amendment on 1.7.2000. However, Revenue has placed reliance on the subsequent decision of the apex court in the case of Indoram Synthetics (supra) where the decision of the apex court is on the same lines but rendered in the context of Section 4 after its amendment. Going by the above decisions of the apex court, we have no doubt that the benefit accruing to the appellant by way of extending the benefit of concessional rate of duty for import of components is to be considered as additional consideration flowing from the buyer to the appellant. The charging of differential duty on such consideration merits no interference. 6.2 The learned advocate has sought to set aside the demand on the g....