2019 (2) TMI 1611

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "An identical issue of valuation of rubber tubes has been decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of CCE&ST, Hyderabad-I vs. Amrutha International and Srikar Rubber Pvt. Ltd. vide Final Order No. A/31410- 31411/2018, dated 29.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble CESTAT was pleased to hold that the tubes manufactured by the appellant cannot be called as parts of automobiles and therefore Notification No. 2/2006- CE(NT), read with notification No. 11/2006-CE(NT) prescribing Central Excise duty under section 4A based on RSP does not apply." 3. After considering the submissions made and hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that this is a valid additional ground which needs to be considered while deciding this appeal. Accordingly, the m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e table of the said notification. The entry reads as below:- Sl. No. Chapter or heading or sub heading of the first schedule Description of goods Abatement as a percentage of retail sale price 97 Any heading Parts, Components and assemblies of automobiles 33.5% Whereas, Notification No. 49/2008 CE (NT) dated 24.12.2008 superseding the earlier notifications wherein the percentage of abatement was reduced as below: Sl. No. Chapter or heading or sub heading of the first schedule Description of goods Abatement as a percentage of retail sale price 108 Any heading Parts, Components and assemblies of automobiles 30% The description of the goods against Sl.No. 108 of the said Notific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the notification issued and hence the valuation has to be correctly done under section 4 and not under section 4A. Therefore, the demand of differential duty is not sustainable and the penalty is not imposable on them. 8. We have considered the arguments on both sides and find that the issue falls in a narrow compass. It needs to be decided whether the inner tubes manufactured for the tyres can be considered as parts of automobiles and charged to duty as per Section 4A, read with notification No. 11/2006- CE (NT), dated 29.05.2006 as amended. This issue is no longer res integra and it was decided by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Tyre and Industries Limited [2017 (358) E.L.T. 1044 (Tri.-Del.)] in which it wa....