TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ponents and A.C. parts & parts of motor vehicles. During the course of audit, it was observed that the Appellant had developed various tools/dies valued at Rs. 17,82,44,420/- for M/s Krupp JBM (P) Ltd, Chennai (KJBM) and later, the Appellant made some modifications in their shape and design. A number of modifications were carried out by them in their factory while the tools were in their possession and use from April, 99 to November, 2000 before their final dispatch to M/s KJBM and some more modifications were also carried out after dispatch to the premises of KJBM by their engineers. Afterwards, modification charges were collected by issuing debit notes which revenue felt should be included in the assessable value in terms of Rule 5 of Val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to perform its required functions. 4. In the appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass an afresh order in respect of 12 numbers of items of tools/dies which were imported by M/s Krupp JBM (P) Ltd. after carrying out necessary verifications. He also held that in respect of other items of the tools/dies, which were manufactured by the appellants, modifications charges were to be included in the assessable value as per Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules 2000. The allegation of the suppression was also upheld and invocation of extended period and imposition of penalty was upheld. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had issued invoices by discharging duty of exci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE 2015 (317) ELT 408 (All.) in this regard. 6. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 8. We find that there are two components of the present appeal. The first component relates to 12 numbers of items of Tools and Dies, which were imported by M/s Krupp J.B.M. Pvt Ltd., Chengalpattu, Tamilnadu for whom the appellants had undertaken the modification and had been manufacturing the components by using these Tools and Dies and not manufactured by the appellants. In respect of Tools and Dies, the first appellate authority has given the following findings: "...that the adjudicatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and integral part of manufacturing process. Since these tools and dies had been retained in the factory against D-3 procedure for manufacture of components, additional sum of money received by the appellants as modification charges for the very same tools/dies is liable to be included in the assessable value in terms of Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 1975 and Rule 6 of Valuation Rules, 2000. The above interpretation is supported by the judgment of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Garlick Engineering Vs. CCE, Bombay, vide final Order No. 626/98-A dated 17.4.98 reported in 1998 (102) ELT 26 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that designing and engineering charges collected from buyers under separate debit notes were deemed to be p....