Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Messrs Rohan Automotive Equipment Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No. 10532 of 2013 - DB
Date of Judgement/Order : 28/06/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Messrs Rohan Automotive Equipment Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Introduction: This case analysis focuses on the CESTAT Ahmedabad order in the matter of Messrs Rohan Automotive Equipment Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii. The case pertains to the disallowance of excise duty expenses due to the alleged non-inclusion of excise duty in the price charged from buyers. The analysis examines the arguments presented by the appellant and the decision rendered by the CESTAT, which grants the benefit of cum-duty price. The case is remanded for re-quantification of duty demand and penalties.

Analysis: In this case, the appellant, Messrs Rohan Automotive Equipment Pvt Ltd, faced a demand for excise duty for the period from 2007-08 to 2009-2010. The appellant was engaged in procuring imported and indigenous parts of LPG/CNG Kits and selling them under the description of Kit Assembly. While the appellant had paid appropriate duty for supplies to certain manufacturers, they had cleared kits without payment of duty to various buyers/dealers. A show cause notice was issued, alleging that the activity constituted manufacturing and attracted excise duty liability.

The appellant contended that no assembly or attachment of parts occurred, and the bought-out parts were simply packed in a box and sold without any processing. They argued that the activity of collecting and packing various components into a box for installation in a motor vehicle did not amount to manufacturing, and therefore, excise duty was not leviable.

The appellant relied on judgments supporting their position that the activity did not meet the criteria of manufacture. They also emphasized that the excise duty liability was confirmed based on the assembly of a few bought-out parts, which they disputed. Additionally, they highlighted that similar transactions involving original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) had led to duty payment, but it did not establish evidence of the business activities constituting manufacturing.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031