TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the said manufactured body built motor vehicles for the period 08/2008 to 07/2012. Consequently, investigation on non-payment of excise duty on the body building activities initiated and on completion of the same, show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 08/06/2013 alleging that during the said period though they have manufactured 2545 numbers of motor vehicles for transport of more than 12 persons falling under Chapter heading 8702 of CETA, 1985 but failed to pay duty of Rs.67,46,70,752/-; consequently on adjudication, the demand was reduced to Rs.58,03,73,082/- with interest and penalty of equivalent amount imposed on the appellant company and Rs.50,000/- on Shri Ramamurthy, Director of the appellant. Hence the preset appeals. 3.1 The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the benefit of exemption under Sl. No.39 of the Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and Sl. No. 276 of the Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 is available subject to fulfilment of conditions as prescribed in Sl.No.9/27 therein viz. i) The motor vehicles should be designed for transport of more than six persons, excluding the driver, including station wagons;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facturer of vehicles should not have manufactured the vehicles on account of the chassis manufacturer stands fulfilled in the present case. 3.5 It is also submitted that once the chassis are purchased by the Appellants, the ownership of such chassis is transferred to the Appellants and the activities undertaken on such chassis would make the Appellants the owner of the goods / vehicles. It is therefore submitted that Condition Nos. 39 or 276 of the Notifications 06/2006-CE or 12/2012-CE have not been violated by the Appellants and hence, the benefit of both the Notifications cannot be denied to the Appellants. 3.6 Rebutting the department's argument that the ownership of the chassis does not change hands and remains with the Volvo group since the transaction is between two companies of the same group and they are closely related is incorrectly premised and is without any legal basis, it is submitted that merely because two companies are from the same group of companies cannot be a reason in itself to hold that both the companies have common interests in the business of each other unless the goods manufactured on account of the Appellant and VIPL are one and the same as the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been disclosed to the department. The Appellants have applied for registration vide letter dated 30.01.2008 explaining the fact of building body on the duty paid chassis procured from VIPL and clearing the same by claiming exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. The Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 04.02.2008 informed that the registration is not required in case the goods are exempted. Thus the fact of clearance of procurement of duty paid Chassis from VIPL was within the knowledge of the department and the department could have conducted the investigation at that point of time itself inasmuch as a layman can easily identify/recognize from the first/beginning name used both by the Appellant and VIPL as "Volvo" that both the Companies seems to be the from the same group of Companies. It is therefore, submitted that the allegation of suppression of facts cannot be alleged to invoke longer period. 3.10 Further it is submitted that the Officers of DGCEI had conducted investigation of records of the Appellant during the month of February, 2010 and did not raise any objections with regard to the eligibility of exemption on the activity of body building....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that these companies are inter-connected undertakings and their relationship established mutuality of interest between the appellant and VIPL, hence ownership of the chassis continues to be vested on VIPL. 5. Heard both sides and perused records. 6. The issues involved in the present appeal for determination are whether: (i) the appellant are eligible to the benefit of Notification No.6/2006 CE dt. 01/03/2006 and 12/2012CE 17.3.2012, as the case may be, in carrying out the activity of body building on the chassis supplied/sold to them by VIPL. (ii) The demand is barred by limitation. 7. The relevant Notification No.6/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006 (Sl.No.39) and Notification No.12/2012-CE dt. 17/03/2012 (Sl.No.276) reads as follows:- Sl. No. Chapter or heading or -sub heading or tariff item of the First Schedule Description of excisable goods Rate Condition No. 39 87 (i) Motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of more than six persons, excluding the driver, including station wagons; and (ii) Motor vehicles for the transport of goods (other than those specially designed for the transport of compressed or liquefied gases), falling under headi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icable VAT paid on such clearance; delivery of possession of the chassis consequent to the sale has been transferred to the appellant thereby complied with the definition of sale and purchase prescribed under Section 2(h) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 9. In arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Commissioner at para 29.1 of the impugned order presented the relationship of the AB Volvo, Sweden the holding company and the other companies under the said Volvo group including the Appellant and VIPL. Analysing the Technology Licence Agreement dt.01.01.2008 between Volvo Bus Corporation, Sweden and the appellant particularly para 2.3 of the said agreement, the learned Commissioner observed that there is a restriction under the said agreement by which the appellant cannot undertake body building activity on the chassis manufactured by any other manufacturer except on the chassis manufactured by VIPL. Further referring to clause 1.7 of the Chassis Supply Agreement dt. 11/01/2008 between appellant and VIPL, the learned Commissioner is of the view that the subsidiary companies within the Volvo group have a control over each other along with mutuality of interest in the business of ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can descend to his heirs or while the new owner's interest is to continue, if the property is sold to him prior to death, unaffected by such death; and (v) ownership is residuary in character and when the lesser rights are given away, their extinction revives all rights in the owner It is defined under the Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition as under:- "Collection of rights to use and enjoy property, including right to transmit to others............." "The right of one or more persons to possess and use a thing to the exclusion of others. The right by which a thing belongs to someone in particular, to the exclusion of all other persons. The exclusive right of possession, enjoyment, and disposal; involving as an essential attribute the right to control, handle, and dispose." 11. Applying the said concept of ownership to the present case, we find that the appellant and M/s VIPL are independent legal entities as both are incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,1956. The chassis manufactured by M/s VIPL sold to the appellant on payment of applicable VAT and excise duty. There is no condition appended to such sale which would indicate the transfer of titl....