INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING (P) LTD. Vs. LTU, CHENNAI
LAWS(CE)-2015-2-12
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 02,2015

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.N. Panda, Member (J) - (1.)THE Ld. Counsel says the basic jurisprudence of excise law is that on removal of excisable goods, that shall fetch Revenue to the Government. If no such goods are removed by the assessee, there shall not be levy in the hands of the appellants. Moulds and dies used by the appellant to manufacture goods for Tata Motors was under an agreement according to the design of the said concern. Those were manufactured by a third party and supplied to the appellant for use in the manufacture of goods for Tata Motors. Amortized cost of such mould formed part of assessable value of the goods manufactured for that concern. In such circumstance, the only goods removed by the appellant were the final products came out of using moulds and dies above.
(2.)APPELLANT explained that cost of moulds and dies were not removed by it for delivery to Tata Motors. The difference between the amount paid to the maker of moulds and dies and the amount realized from Tata Motors has been sought to be taxed by Revenue, which is in dispute in the present appeal. Such difference not being related to clearance of any excisable goods by appellant, there shall not be levy of excise duty on the difference realized from Tata Motors. He relied on the decision of DCM Engineering Products Vs. CCE, Jalandhar 2010 (251) ELT 91 (Tri. -Del.) to submit that on similar circumstances, the Tribunal has held that there was no removal of moulds and dies by the appellant to Maruti Suzuki. Therefore, in absence of removal of moulds and dies by the appellant from its factory, there shall not be levy of excise duty thereon in the hands of the appellants.
On the other hand, Revenue says that when the moulds and dies were used in the manufacture of the final products meant for Tata Motors, there was deemed removal thereof for which that shall be subject to levy of duty.

(3.)HEARD both sides. Levy of duty on the difference between the charge of moulds and dies paid to maker thereof and recovery of such charge from Tata Motors is inconceivable when no such moulds and dies were removed by appellant. Such goods were never cleared by the appellant on the facts and circumstances brought out in the adjudication order. Appellant was mere user thereof. Such use of mould in the manufacture does not bring out the case of deemed removal thereof. Law is well settled that there is no one to one relation of the inputs to the outputs in Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. : 1999 (112) ELT 353 (S.C.). The finished goods cleared are only liable to duty. But, mere use of moulds and dies to manufacture of such finished goods are not exigible to levy in the hands of the appellant. Record does not reveal allegation of undervaluation of the goods cleared to Tata Motors.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.