COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAVAN, GADKARI CHOWK, NASHIK Vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Revenue challenges an order dated 25-3-2015, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Mumbai.

(2.) It is time we indicate to the Revenue Officials and in the order of their hierarchy that at least the highest Court in the State is of the firm view that when the Revenue complains of pendency of cases, it is squarely to be blamed for the largest litigant before us is the Revenue itself. In matters after matters, where the Tribunal has taken a view on the point of limitation and applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("the Act" for short), rarely has the Tribunal's findings and conclusions been accepted with the required degree of grace and maturity by the Revenue Officials. Some of the Senior Revenue Officials may not feel anything about lack of the above, but we must express our strong displeasure when they doubt the correctness, authenticity of the findings and conclusions on such points or issues as also the bona fides of their own colleagues who occupy the position of an Adjudicating Authority or Officer.

(3.) The respondents/Mahindra & Mahindra Limited carried on business of manufacturing of motor vehicles and parts thereof, falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During audit conducted in January, 2001, it was noticed that the assessee was clearing motor vehicles from the factory to the Regional Sales Office on payment of duty on the assessable value determined on the basis of sale value of identical vehicles from the same Regional Sales Office. In some cases, it was noticed that such vehicles were transferred to another Regional Sales Office due to cancellation of orders at the earlier Regional Sales Office or due to requirement at the other Sales Office. The intradepot transfers also take place in other exigencies. In such cases, it was noticed that the assessee was charging higher price from the customers, being higher than the value on which excise duty has been paid.