TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant was also selling small quantities of their manufactured ball bearings to certain retail sellers. The appellant have been clearing all the goods manufactured by them at transaction value and paying Central Excise duty taking the transaction value as assessable value for the goods manufactured and sold by them. It has been the contention of the Revenue that for the goods sold by the appellant to retail sellers they should have adopted the MRP value as the basis of assessable value after allowance of prescribed abatement given in the relevant notification issued under section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus the basic allegation of the department was that by not adopting the MRP value for the clearances made to the retailers, the appellant have mis-declared the assessable value and therefore, the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,51,125/- was demanded under the extended time under proviso to section 11 A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The penal provisions of section 11AC has also been invoked and the Director of the firm Shri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal has also been issued with Show cause notice for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assification and dutiability. Statutory fiscal entry, basic character, function and actual use of product are relevant factors. Reliance has been made by them on the following decisions: 1. State of Tamil Nadu vs. Vinyl Cable Industries [1993 (88) STC 430 Mad HC] 2. CCE vs. Carrier Aircon Ltd. [2006 (199) ELT 577 (SC)] 3. Chanddra Lakshmi Laminated Safety Glass Ltd. vs. CCE [1995 (77) ELT 877-CEGAT-3 (Mum)] 4. Established practice of assessment cannot be changed without cogent reasons. That the appellants are paying duty on clearance of ball bearings on the basis of transaction value since the inception. It is pleaded that the established practice of assessment cannot be changed without cogent reasons as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [1977 (94) ELT A/133)]. 5. That as per Note 2 of Section XVII (Vehicles, Aircrafts, Vessels and Associated Transport Equipments), the expressions "parts and accessories" do not apply to various articles [from (a) to (l)] which includes battery, IC Engines and Ball and Roller Bearings whether or not they are identifiable as goods of Section XVII (which covers chapter 86 to 89). Thus, this no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not legally tenable and therefore demand is liable to be set aside on limitation ground itself. The Learned advocate has taken shelter of various judicial pronouncements in this regard. Same are as follows:- 1. Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. CCE [2005(188)ELT 149 (SC)]; 2. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. CCE [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)]; 3. Naresh Kumar and Co. Pvt Ltd. vs. UOI [2014 (35) STR 506 (Cal)]. 8. We have also heard the learned DR, who has read out the findings in the order-in-original and order in appeal. 9. We have heard both the sides and have perused the record of appeal carefully. It is seen that the appellant assessee have been clearing ball bearing to their institutional buyers as well as to their retail sellers on payment of duty on the basis of transactional value and not on the basis of MRP value given on the packing of such clearances. It is also the matter of record that the notifications issued time to time under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 do not cover the ball bearings falling under Chapter 84.82 specifically for adopting Maximum Retail Price for determination of assessable value for payment of Central Excise duty. 10. Before proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2) (3) (4) 108. Any Chapter Parts, components and assemblies of vehicles (including chassis fitted with engines) falling under Chapter 87 excluding vehicles falling under headings 8712, 8713, 8715 and 8716 30% From the aforesaid notifications it is clearly evident that during the period 01.06.2006 to 27.02.2010 description goods on which provisions of MRP were applicable was 'Parts, components and assemblies of automobiles' and subsequently vide Notification No. 09/2010 the same was made applicable only to 'Parts, components and assemblies of vehicles (including chassis fitted with engines) falling under Chapter 87 excluding vehicles falling under headings 8712, 8713, 8715 and 8716. The appellant submit that since, there product is classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.82; therefore, there is no doubt that the demand for the period post 27.02.2010 deserves to be set aside, even if the other grounds of the appellant are not allowed. 11. A perusal of above entries under the relevant notifications for arriving at the assessable value on the basis of MRP price covers only parts, components and assemblies of automobiles. It is very clear that bearings are not specifically ....