TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....long with applicable interest under section 11 AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, besides imposing penalty of like amount as the former under section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 in addition to imposing penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in relation to the second demand while imposing penalty of Rs. 5000 on M/s Tata Motors Ltd under rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Both are in appeal against the detriments and we dispose of the disputes by a common order. 2. The value alleged to have been excluded for computation of duty liability by the adoption of price at the same level as that at which' chassis' were cleared by M/s Tata Motors Ltd to the appellant included a discount, the cess discharged under Automobile Cess Act, 1984 and the freight incurred in transporting the 'chassis' to the premises of the appellant. According to central excise authorities, the relationship between the appellant and M/s Tata Motors Ltd was that of principal and job-worker, apparent from the clearance on 'no sale' basis, the restriction on the utilization of CENVAT credit of duty paid by M/s Tata Motors Ltd which was to be availed by the appellant only for the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Goods) Rules, 2000 as applicable when the entire clearance is captively consumed and that- "7. We also agree with the submission of the assessee that even if both the rules, i.e. Rule 4 and Rule 8, were applicable, it would only be logical to read and apply the various rules in the Central Excise Valuation Rules in a sequential manner. Though the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 do not specifically prescribe such sequential application of various rules, the same, in our view, is the only reasonable way to read these rules. Any other interpretation would only lead to confusion and chaos. Since the applicability of Rule 4 is not really in dispute, there was no need to look further and regardless of the applicability or otherwise of Rule 8, the assessable value should have been determined in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. 8. The conclusion that we are drawing in the present case would lead to determination of a value which, in our view, will not only be reasonable but also consistent with the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. We would, at this stage, draw support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the assessee's own case, as reported in 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re MDS Switchgear Ltd, affirming the finding of the Tribunal in disposing of the appeal before it, articulating that 7. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that in fact there was no loss of revenue. It accepted the appeal by recording the following reasons : "Reasons given by the appellants for the alleged inflation of the value of the intermediate goods are logical. What was required of the Commissioner was to examine the quantum of the loading of the assessable value by the Modvat credit on the earlier inputs. That exercise has nowhere been done. If the department was of the opinion that the value of the final product was depressed, then they could have charged the Jalgaon unit with under-invoicing of their product. That has also not been done. The valuation as given by the Sinnar unit was duly approved by the department and the payment of duty was also duly accepted. We find absolutely no substance in the attempt of the learned Commissioner to convert a part of the duty so paid into 'deposit of duty'. There is no legal basis for such presumption. The rules entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e law finally came to be settled in Ujagar Prints-III. However, in fairness to the appellant, we do not wish to for close the issue giving reference to Ujagar Print-III alone. We may make brief comments on the interpretation of Rule 11 which was subject of lengthy discussion at the time of hearing of these appeals. But before we do that, we may again clarify that while Rule 8 is generally applicable to non-sale transactions, it cannot be applied at the stage of clearance of the goods by the job workers to the principal for the reason that at that stage there is no further consumption of the goods as a raw material either by himself or on his behalf for production of some other goods. But it does not mean that the basic principle governing the determination of value under Rule 8 is to be given a go-bye. The words "using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules" occurring in Rule 11 clearly indicate the relevance of the provisions of Rule 8. Indeed, the provisions and the principle involved are the guiding factors for determining the assessable value of the goods under Rule 11. as held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in re Eicher Mo....