Fritzmeier Motherson Cabin Engineering P Ltd. v. Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai outer)

CESTAT21 Sept 2026E/41542/2018

Download

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

No order text is published upstream for this record. The document itself carries the full text.

This is one of 1,952 CESTAT Excise Appeal cases decided by the CESTAT in 2026.

Filed as

CESTAT Excise Appeal 2026

Fritzmeier Motherson Cabin Engineering P Ltd. vs Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai outer) — CESTAT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶24

Ld. Advocate placed reliance on Sintercom India Ltd. vs. Additional Director General (Adjudication), New Delhi, 2025 (2) TMI 514-CESTAT NEW DELHI and Denso India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Director General (Adjudication), New Delhi, 2024 (3) TMI 686-CESTAT NEW DELHI , for the contention that drawings furnished before the contract of sale was executed cannot be additional consideration; and on M/s. Rane NSK Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Additional Director General (Adjudication), 2025 (4) TMI 177-CESTAT NEW DELHI and G.E. Plastics India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-I, 2004 (169) ELT 46 (Tri.-Del.) , for the contention that what was supplied was indicative of product specifications and not detailed engineering work calling for amortisation. Assailing the quantification, Ld. Counsel argued that a percentage volunteered by one buyer in relation to an altogether different product is no measure of the value of drawings supplied by every buyer. On limitation, Ld. Counsel urged that the exercise is revenue neutral, the duty if paid being available as credit to the OEM, relying on Nirlon Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai, 2015 (320) ELT 22 (S.C.) . It was also contended that the appellant filed returns regularly and was periodically audited, and hence its practice was well known to the department. These circumstances too would preclude the Department from invoking extended period of limitation. Reliance was placed on the decisions in CCE, Noida vs. M/s. Accurate Chemical Industries, 2014 (2) TMI 770-Allahabad High Court, Standard Drums and Barrels Mfg. Co. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II, 2018 (7) TMI 1590-CESTAT MUMBAI : MANU/CM/0117/2018, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, 2010 (18) STR 493 (Tri.-Bang.): Manu/CB/0004/2010 , and Final Order No.40543-40544/2023 dated 11.07.2023 in M/s. Indo Shell Cast Pvt. Ltd. (Unit-I) vs. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, 2023 (7) TMI 429-CESTAT CHENNAI . He prays that the appeal may be allowed.

¶65

We proceed to address the decisions relied upon by the appellate authority and find that not one of the three decisions supports the order under appeal. S.R. Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, 2017 (7) GSTL 466 (Tri.-Del.) , concerned castings manufactured for the Bhilai Steel Plant against drawings supplied by that customer, the department having added fifteen per cent of the value of the design. The Tribunal, did observe that the value of the design would have to be added under Explanation 1 to Rule 6, but went on to hold that the design was about twenty two years old, that copyright was inapplicable to it, that it was in the public domain, and that its value as certified by a Chartered Engineer was nil. The demand was set aside and the appeals were allowed. Read as a whole the decision is authority that a notional percentage cannot be substituted for proof of value and that an unrebutted Chartered Engineer’s certificate must be given effect. To extract from it the single sentence that value has to be added, while passing over the conclusion that the value to be added was nil, is to mistake an observation made along the way for the ratio of the case. Likewise, Simplex Engg. & Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T.LTU, Delhi, 2016 (343) ELT 458 (Tri.-Del.) , is distinguishable on a ground going to the root. There the appellant manufactured custom made engineering goods and itself prepared the drawings in those cases where the customer supplied none. It was therefore not in dispute that the drawings supplied by customers were production drawings occupying the same place in the manufacture as those the appellant would otherwise have had to prepare. It was on that undisputed fact that inclusion was ordered. No such premise exists here. Beyond that, insofar as Simplex speaks to quantification it says the opposite of what the impugned order derives from it, having held in terms that the adoption of ten per cent of the value of the goods was arbitrary, unreasonable and without any basis, and that reasons had to be given if the Chartered Engineer’s certificate were to be rejected. The vice which Simplex identified is the vice which attends the figure of 0.98%, and in an aggravated form, since ten per cent there was at least a percentage of the goods in question whereas 0.98% here is borrowed from the development of tractors. The decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, 2015 (317) ELT 346 (Tri.Chennai) , is still further removed. That was job work for Mahindra and Hyundai on a paint finishing system, duty having been discharged on

Fritzmeier Motherson Cabin Engineering P Ltd. v. Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai outer)

Case summary

Case details

Similar cases

Celebrity Fashions Limited vs Chennai-Iv

Commissioner of Cgst & Central Excise-Pune-I vs Honewell Automation India Limited

Bbsr Commissionerate vs Meena Zarda Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Celebrity Fashions Ltd. vs Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai outer)

Fritzmeier Motherson Cabin Engineering P Ltd. v. Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai outer)

Case summary

Case details

Similar cases

Celebrity Fashions Limited vs Chennai-Iv

Commissioner of Cgst & Central Excise-Pune-I vs Honewell Automation India Limited

Bbsr Commissionerate vs Meena Zarda Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Celebrity Fashions Ltd. vs Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai outer)

P.C.Jain vs Udaipur

Senior Manager ( P&S) vs Commissioner of Central Excise -Mumbai-I

Gs Sankhla vs Udaipur

Manas Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise-Nagpur