TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty paid by M/s. TML and they have also procured raw materials by their own account. 2. The appellants charged a consolidated sales consideration for the body built on the chassis which included the cost of raw materials procured by the appellants; body building costs and the profit margin. They were arriving at the assessable value by adding the price of the body plus cost of chassis in terms of Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. They are also paying VAT on their own consideration of sales on the value of body building cost plus excise duty. 2.1 Thereafter, the Department issued following SCNs proposing re-determination of assessable value of goods cleared by the appellants in terms of Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uation Rules, 2000 would apply in their case as the issue involved is sale of body built on the chassis supplied by M/s. TML for a price. They relied upon the following cases: (i) Patnaik & Company Vs. State of Orissa- 1965 (16) STC 364 (SC). (ii) Mckenzies Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra- 1965 (15) STC 518 (SC). (iii) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. M.G. Brothers- 1975 (35) STC 24 (SC). (iv) Pothula Subba Rao Vs. State of A.P.- 1972 (30) STC 36 (AP). (v) Jiwan Singh & Sons Vs. State of Punjab- 1963 (14) STC 957 (P&H). (vi) Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Haji Abdul Majid & Sons- 1963(4) STC 435. 3.1 He further submitted that the Department has erred in interpreting that they have ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er goods it does not amount to job work. 3.3 Interest and penalty are not imposable in view of the following: (i) Hyva (India ) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Belapur 2013 (292) ELT 59 (Tri. Mum.). (ii) Audi Automobiles Vs. Commr. of C.EX., Indore 2017 (249) ELT 124 (Tri. Del.). (iii) Audi Automobiles Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Indore 2017 (346) ELT 498 (Tri.Del.). (iv) Audi Automobiles Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Indore 2017 (350) ELT 278 (Tri. Del.) (v) HMM Coaches Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Panchkula 2016 (339) ELT 152 (Tri. Del.). 3.4 The learned counsel for the appellants has fairly conceded that the Tribunal in their own case 2013 (292) ELT 59 (Tri. Mum) has decided the issue in favour of Revenue.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epted that the Department has erred in quantifying the demand in not deducting the sales tax amount from the value. 4. The learned DR has reiterated the findings of OIO and OIA as applicable and submitted that the appellants have not challenged the calculations before the Original Authority so they cannot be allowed to raise the same at the appellate stage. He has placed reliance on Grob Tea Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.Ex. Shillong, 1997 (89) ELT 206 (Tri.). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that as conceded by the learned counsel for the appellants themselves, the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal and Bombay High Court in their own case. However, we find that the learned counsel has m....