TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 919
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Adv., Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR. JUDGMENT PER K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. The issue raised in the above cases is in a narrow compass as to whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A is available to the Central Excise and Service Tax Department (for short, 'the Department'). 2. We heard Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, learned AoR appearing for the appellants and Ms. Nisha Bagchi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Department. 3. A preliminary objection was raised by Ms. Bagchi that the appeal would not come within the contours of Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the issue agitated having no relation to any question involving the rate of duty of excise or to the valuatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, which is 110 % of the cost of its manufacture. After completion of the body building, the completed motor vehicle, with the body built, is returned to the manufacturer and at the time of clearance by the job worker; the appellants herein, excise duty is computed after availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on the chassis, on the sum total of the cost of the manufacturer, the directly received raw materials, the job work charges and the profit of the job worker. The excise duty of the body built, is worked out on the basis of the actual cost of manufacture of chassis without adding 10% additional cost, which according to the assessee represents the profit margin of the manufacturer. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- and the value of the final product is Rs.30/- comprising of the value of the grey cloth plus value of the job work plus the manufacturing profit and expenses, it would follow that the value of complete motor vehicle would be the value of chassis i.e.110% of the cost of manufacture, say Rs. 3,30,000/- plus value of the job work done by Bhagirath, say Rs. 1,00,000/- plus the manufacturing profit and expenses of Bhagirath, say Rs. 70,000/- again, that is, in all Rs. 5,00,000/- which would be the correct assessable value of the complete vehicle. The value of the complete motor vehicle cannot be arrived at de hors the additional 10% of the cost of manufacture which is part of the value of the intermediate product i.e. chassis. In other w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holesale price was jettisoned in favour of a deemed sale price by the processor to the merchant manufacturer. [Underlining by us for emphasis] 8. Before the CESTAT, it was argued that M/s Ujagar Prints and Others (II) & M/s Ujagar Prints and Others (III) only declared that the value of the raw materials, the processing charges and profits of the job workers were to be added to the cost of the chassis and specifically clarified that the profits of the manufacturers (traders' profits therein); who gets the body built (who gets the fabrics processed), need not be added because those would be post manufacturing profits. Reliance was also placed on Pawan Biscuits Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE7 and General Engineering Works v. CCE8. Both these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plies the completed motor vehicle, with 'body built' to the manufacturer, along with the value of the raw materials and expenses incurred by the job worker and profits generated in the job work. What was not includable, even as per M/s Ujagar Prints and Others (II) & M/s Ujagar Prints and Others (III) was the anticipated profit in sale of the completed motor vehicle by the manufacturer and the expenses incurred by the manufacturer after receipt of the competed vehicle from the job worker. 12. Hence, it is based on M/s Ujagar Prints and Others (III)2 that the finding was rendered. The assessee was liable to include 10% included in the valuation under Rule 8, on which the manufacturer pays duty at the time of supply to the job worker. When....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not one where the extended period of limitation could be invoked. Isn the first SCN, there was no such allegation raised. 15. Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding explained the words employed in the proviso to Section 11-A. It was held that as far as 'fraud' and 'collusion' are concerned, the intent to evade duty is built into these words and 'misstatement' or 'suppression' of facts are clearly qualified by the word 'wilful', which also means with an intent to evade duty. Even 'contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or Rules' is also qualified by the immediately following words 'with intent to evade payment of duty'. Therefore, there cannot be a suppression or misstatement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitu....