Case Law Details
Tata Motors Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that the Appellant is merely supplies the chassis to body-builder and receives the body-built vehicle from the body-builder. Accordingly, Appellant is not the manufacturer of the body-built vehicle. Hence, demand of duty unsustainable.
Facts- The appellant is 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 bodybuilders for building body thereon, in the premises of the job-worker. The body-build vehicle is thereafter supplied by the body builder to the Regional Sales Offices (RSOs) of the Appellant for sale to customers.
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 body-built vehicle is sold by the Appellant from RSOs as assessable value. The Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and equal penalty. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Patna High Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. UOI has 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-builder. The Hon’ble High Court held the body builders only to be the actual manufacturers.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
