AI Insights
The case involves the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs as the appellant and M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. as the respondent. The core issue was whether the value addition made to a base vehicle, specifically a Jeep, by way of bullet proofing, should be included in the transaction value for excise duty purposes. The Jeeps in question were manufactured without bullet proofing and were only subjected to bullet proofing after their clearance from the factory, based on specific requirements from various State Police Departments. The Tribunal had previously ruled that the cost of bullet proofing should not be added to the transaction value, a decision which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IDT) 608504 (SC)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Supreme court cases
Pronouncement Date
08-03-2016
Judgement Text
"1\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA \nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION \nCIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5918/2013\nCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS APPELLANT(S)\n VERSUS\nM/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. RESPONDENT(S)\nWITH \nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 5856 OF 2010\n(Arising out of Civil Appeal D No. 16599 of 2010.) \nO R D E R \n \nOn the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, we\nhave called for the record of Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2010 which\nraises identical issue as involved in the present appeal and heard\nalong with the instant appeal. \nThe question of law which is sought to be raised by the\nRevenue/Appellant in this appeal is as to whether the value\naddition made to the base vehicle viz. ‘the Jeep’ in question, by\nway of bullet proofing, has to be added while arriving at\ntransaction value for the purpose of excise duty. We may mention\nthat in the normal course, the Jeeps are manufactured by the\nrespondent/assessee without any such bullet proofing. However,\nthere was a specific requirement of the Police Department in\nvarious States for supply of Jeeps with bullet proofing system, the\nJeeps were supplied to them after getting the same bullet proofing.\nHowever, the admitted facts are that as far as clearance of these\nDigitally signed by\nASHWANI KUMAR\nDate: 2016.03.12\n11:45:13 IST\nReason:\nSignature Not Verified\n\n2\nJeeps from the factory of the respondent/assessee is concerned,\nthey were cleared without any bullet proofing. It is only after\nclearance that the Jeeps were sent to get the processing of bullet\nproofing carried out by job workers outside the factory premises.\nThe Tribunal has, thus, rightly held that in such circumstances,\nthe cost of bullet proofing could not be added to arrive at the\ntransaction value. The order of the Tribunal does not warrant any\ninterference. \nThese appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. \n \n......................J.\n[A.K. SIKRI]\n......................J.\n \n[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]\nNEW DELHI;\nMARCH 08, 2016 \n\n3\nITEM NO.315 COURT NO.12 SECTION III\n S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A\n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS\nCivil Appeal No(s). 5918/2013\nCOMM OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS Appellant(s)\n VERSUS\nM/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Respondent(s)\n(with appln. (s) for stay and office report)\nWITH \nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 5856 OF 2010 (Arising out of Civil Appeal D No.\n16599 of 2010.) \nDate : 08/03/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN\nFor Appellant(s)\nMr. K. Radhakrishan, Sr. Adv. \nMs. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv. \nMs. Sunita Rao, Adv. \nMr. Anurag, Adv. \n Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.\n \nFor Respondent(s)\nMr. M. P. Devanath,Adv.\n Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv. \nMr. Ananth.K., Adv. \nMs. L.Charnaya, Adv. \nMr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. \nMr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. \n UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n O R D E R\nThe Civil Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. \nInterlocutory Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed\nof accordingly. \n(Ashwani Thakur)\n (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty)\n COURT MASTER\n \n COURT MASTER\n(Signed order is placed on the file)\nNote:The record of Civil Appeal No. 5856 OF 2010 (Arising out of\nCivil Appeal D No. 16599 of 2010.)is called for on the request of\nthe learned counsel for the appellant. \n"
