2017 (11) TMI 1325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... chapter heading 8704, 8707, 7310 and 7208 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is engaged in manufacturing Tippers and Truck body and mounted the tippers and truck body on the chassis supplied by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. the Appellants had availed the cenvat credit on the duty paid chassis supplied by Tata Motors Ltd. The department is of the view that valuation will have to be done under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri Khemuka and Shri H C. Saini, learned Counsels for the parties. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, it appears that identical issue has came up before the Tribunal a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s regard, yet it is not possible to ignore the same totally while dealing with the matter, as the issue involved clearly required the appellants to establish therein contention that they are the sub-contractors as claimed by them. If the document in the form of invoice was merely to disclose sale of fabrication and mounting of the body on the chassis and that the motor vehicle is ultimately to be the product saleable by the manufacturer of chassis, it was required for them to establish the same with cogent materials. The records nowhere disclose any justification for non-production of the said documents i.e. the contract and terms and conditions in relation to the purchase order. It is however clarified by the learned Counsel for the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the said firms had cleared the goods in relation to the body fabricating and mounting on the chassis which were supplied to the said firms free of cost by the manufacturer of chassis. 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. 22. As regards the penalty, however, we find that the learned Advocate is justified in contending that matter being related to the interpretation of the provisions of law and the fact that the Apex Court in Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd., case had taken a particular view on the aspect of expression 'job wo....