LexM/S.TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. versus COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M/S. TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD.
A
v.
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR
>- \,
NOVEMBER 29, 2007
B
[ASHOK BHAN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.}
Central Excise Act, 1944-s. 4(1)(a)-Excise duty-On chasis of
a particular model-Value of chasis depending on its fitments-Chasis
in question having standardfitment of Engine No.697 NA and Gear c
Box GBA 40-ln the Price List for disputed period, assessee mentioning
that the chasis having the fitment of Engine No. 69 2 DI and Gear Box
GBA 30-0n the basis of Price List, revenue demanding differential
-}
duty, assuming that assessee recovered an amount over and above value
"
declared in the Price List-Plea that mention of fitment in the Price D
List was a clerical mistake-Tribunal holding that there was short
levy-On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, there was no short levy
on the part of the assessee-In absence of any evidence, finding that
there was short levy, is not sustainable.
Appellant-assessee was manufacturer of chasis for various E
\
models of motor vehicles. The value of chasis depended on its
fitments. The chasis model in question was having standard fitment
of Engine No. 697 NA and Gear Box GBS 40. But the assessee, in
-r
its Price List dated 1.11.1994 and 1.4.1995 mentioned that chasis in
question was fitted with Engine No. 692 DI engines and GBS 30 Gear F
Box. Department relying on the Price List, revised differential
demand assuming that the assessee had collected Rs.15,290/- per
chasis over and above the value declared in the Price List. The
demand was confirmed by the concerned authority. The appeal
thereagainst was dismissed by the Tribunal. An application for G
rectification of mistake was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence
I
the present appeals against the two orders of the Tribunal.
,
Assessee contended that mention of Engine No.692 DI and Gear
683
H
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 12 S.C.R.
A Box GBS 30, instead of Engine No.697 NA and Gear Box GBS 40,
in the Price List was a clerical/typing mistake.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. For the periods prior and subsequent to 1st
B November, 1994 and 1st April, 1995, price lists indicating Engine
no. 697 NA and Gear Box GBS 40 as a standard fitment have been
accepted by the department and no demand for additional duty has
been raised for that period. The statutory cost audit report of the
company also mentioned that Engine No. 697 NA and Gear Box
C GBS 40 are the standard parts of the chassis of model no.1612 which
has not been considered by the Tribunal. Certification from
Automobile Research Association oflndia, which is a mandatory
requirement under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and VRDE,
also shows that the specification of chassis of model no. 1612 are
D Engine No. 697NA and Gear Box GBS 40. This aspect has also been
overlooked by the Tribunal while passing the order.
[Para 8] [687-E, F, G]
2. It is also clear from the invoices raised by the appellant during
the disputed period that Engine No. 697NA and Gear Box GBS 40
E are not mentioned as additional fitment but as a standard fitment
and full duty has been paid on that basis. Had the standard fitment
of chassis of model no. 1612 been engine no. 692 DI and gear box
GBS 30, then the appellant would have charged separately for fitting
the chassis with Engine No. 697NA and gear box GBS 40 as
F additional fitment, but in fact it is not so. [Para 9] [687-G; 688-A, BJ
G
H
3. Under Section 4(l)(a) of the Central Excise Act when the
goods are sold for to an unrelated person and price is the sole
consideration, then the assessable value of the goods is transaction
value at the time and place of removal/delivery of the goods.
Appellant has paid excise duty on the entire price charged by it from
its customers in respect of sales made at the factory gate and no
extra amount was realized over and above the invoice price. Even
in respect of sales made from the depot, the amount of Rs.
15,290/-, as alleged, has not been charged from the buyer. The
{
J
M/S. TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO.LTD. v. 685
COMMNR.OFCENTRALEXCISE,JAMSHEDPUR[BHAN,J.]
invoices evidencing payment of duty on the entire amount collected A
from the buyer are also on record and the department has not
disputed this position. Either in the order of the authority-in-original
or in the order of the Tribunal, there is no finding directly or indirectly
to suggest that the appellant had collecExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.