TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant, M/s Tata Motors Ltd. has filed this appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that engaged in manufacturing chassis of commercial motor vehicles in their Jamshedpur factory. Such chassis, apart from being sold to independent customers from the factory gate, is also supplied to independent body builders for building body thereon, in the premises of the job-worker. The body-built vehicle is thereafter supplied by the body builder to the Regional Sales Offices(RSOs) of the Appellant for sale to customers . 3. During the period September 2003 to February 2007, the Appellant followed the following procedure in respect of chassis dispatched to independent body builders:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le, chassis will be provided on non-billable basis, and hence, no sales tax would be payable. 5. A SCN dated 01.10.2008 was issued on the Appellant, proposing to demand differential excise duty Rs. 21,27,34,334/- along with interest and equivalent penalty, by adopting the final price at which the bodybuilt vehicle is sold by the Appellant from RSOs as assessable value, on the following basis: a. Excise duty was not discharged in a correct manner because chassis were merely removed for undertaking processing thereon and were not sold to the body builders. b. The price charged by body builders was job work charges and not the price of the body-built vehicle. c. In the case of supply of body-built vehicles, transa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... body of the vehicles over the chassis and supply the fully built vehicle to the RSOs on payment of duty on landed cost of chassis plus body-building charges as per Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules and in line with the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints Ltd., 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.)] (iii) The vehicles were sold to the customers from the RSOs. (iv) The activity of building body on the chassis amounts to the manufacture of motor vehicles, in terms of the Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On this reason only the body builder was paying excise duty at the time of clearance of body-built vehicle to the RSO. (v) The Show Cause Notice does not dispute the fact that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factory and not sale. • of Section 4(1)(b)of the Excise Act - which provide for valuation of goods cleared from the factory other than by way of sales. (viii) it is a settled law that in the case of job-work transaction, the jobworker is the manufacturer and not the raw-material supplier. In the Appellant own case, viz. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. UOI, reported at 1988 (35) ELT 617 (Pat.), the Hon'ble Patna High Court held that the Appellant who merely supplies the chassis to body-builder and receives the body-built vehicle from the body-builder, is not the manufacturer of the body-built vehicle, even though the Appellant supervises the quality of such body-built vehicles before clearance by body-b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mumbai, II, 2013 (295) E.L.T. 211 (Tri. - Mumbai), wherein the job-workers were manufacturing the goods (barges and tugs) at the premises hired by the raw-material supplier from its own equipment, held that the raw-material supplier did supervisory quality checks only. Accordingly, it was held that it was the job-worker who was the manufacturer and not the raw-material supplier and the demand of duty on the raw-material supplier .The facts of the present case are on better footing from this case and thus, the ratio thereof, is fully applicable. (xii) Similar proposition has been upheld in the following cases: • Ispat Profiles India Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, 2018 (363) E.L.T. 900 (Tri. - Mumbai) • CCE, Indore v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 10. We observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is valuation of motor vehicles manufactured by the job worker on the duty paid chassis supplied by the Appellant. The issue to be decided is whether in relation to the body-built vehicles manufactured and cleared on payment of duty, on landed cost of chassis plus job-work charges, by the body-builder on the chassis supplied by the Appellant, differential excise duty can be demanded from the Appellant by adopting the final price at which the body-built vehicle is sold by the Appellant from RSOs as assessable value for the period prior to 01.04.2007? 11. We observe that the issue is no more res integra as in the Appellant own case, viz. Tata Engineering and Locomotive ....