CX - Appellant producing CA certificate showing inclusion of elements which Revenue alleges was not included in AV - CCE has unnecessarily proceeded to adjudicate matter without verifying facts and expecting that this is Tribunal's job: CESTAT
By TIOL News Service
MUMBAI, JULY 18, 2014: A total duty demand of Rs.1.22 crores has been confirmed against the appellant by the CCE, Belapur and, therefore, they are before the CESTAT. The demand is for the period October, 2003 to March, 2007.
Incidentally, post 1 st April, 2007, the assessee has faced valuation issues in terms of rule 10A of the Valuation Rules, 2000 and which has been reported by us exhaustively as 2013-TIOL-166-CESTAT-MUM.
Be that as it may, in the present case, the differential duty of Rs.1.22 crores has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant has not included the cost of transportation and transit insurance charges and automobile cess in respect of ‘chassis fitted with engines' manufactured and supplied by M/s. Tata Motors, Jamshedpur for body building to the appellant. The body built vehicles were supplied to the depots of Tata Motors for sale and duty liability on the goods were discharged on the cost arrived on the basis of Ujagar Print's formula.
Before the CESTAT, the appellant submitted -
+ The chassis with engine was supplied by M/s Tata Motors who had borne the cost of transportation, transit insurance and automobile cess as per the affidavit filed by them. The cost of transportation and transit insurance has been included in the value of the goods supplied to the appellant by M/s Tata Motors.
+ The Chartered Accountants of M/s Tata Motors have also certified that the said cost has been included in the assessable value. They had also received a confirmation in this regard through e-mail exchanged between the appellant and Tata Motors , which clearly shows that the cost of transportation
+ transit insurance has been already included.
+ The adjudicating authority, even though, has recorded these facts, has not accepted the contention of the appellant and proceeded to confirm the duty demand.
The Bench caustically observed -
++ The appellant has produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate and copies of e-mail correspondence exchanged between them in support of the claim that these costs have already been included.
++ The question whether the said cost has been included or not could have been easily verified by the department by conducting necessary enquiry through the jurisdictional excise authorities at Jamshedpur.
++ Instead of doing the necessary verification, the adjudicating authority has unnecessarily proceeded to adjudicate the matter without verifying the facts and expecting that it is Tribunal's job to verify these facts and not that of the adjudicating authority.
++ We strongly condemn this approach of the adjudicating authority.When a certificate is produced duly certified by the Chartered Accountant it was the responsibility of the adjudicating authority to consider and accept the same. If he had any doubt about the veracity of the certificate, then he could have got the same verified through the jurisdictional excise authorities at Jamshedpur, which has not been done in the instant case.
In fine, the Bench set aside the order and allowed the appeals by way of remand.
The Registry was also directed to forward a copy of the order to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise concerned to issue necessary instructions as deemed fit, so that frivolous litigation is avoided. You read something like this yesterday too – See 2014-TIOL-1264-CESTAT-MUM.
In passing : Incidentally, a similar remark on the passing the buck attitude of the adjudicating authority was also made by the same Bench in the matter of an order passed by the Commissioner next door - see 2014-TIOL-1049-CESTAT-MUM.
(See 2014-TIOL-1277-CESTAT-MUM)
