2012 (12) TMI 855 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit on tool kits sold along with two wheelers - denial - Held that - Clause 4(b) of Rule 138 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (as amended) dealing with signals and additional safety measures for motor vehicle makes it incumbent on driver of every vehicle to carry the tool kit prescribed by the manufacturer. Since carrying of the tool kit in the vehicle is obligatory for the driver, it can be safely inferred that tool kit and first aid kit are necessary accessories of the motor vehicle as driving of the vehicle without those accessories would be violative of Rule 138(4)(b) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Thus, the appellant had supplied the tool kit as per statutory requirements under Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 as accessories to be used in relation to the manufacture of vehicle. Thus, tool kit is squarely covered by the definition of input given under Rule 2(k)(i) of CRR and that the appellant had rightly availed the Cenvat credit in relation to tool kits - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 2(k)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 regarding eligibility of tool kits as inputs for Cenvat credit.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 2(k)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing two-wheelers, availed Cenvat credit for tool kits sold with the two-wheelers. The department contended that the Cenvat credit on tool kits was impermissible under Rule 3(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellant argued that tool kits are essential components/accessories sold with two-wheelers, making them eligible for Cenvat credit under Rule 2(k)(i). The appellant cited Rule 138 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1999, which mandates the sale of vehicles with tool kits. The appellant claimed that the tool kits were inputs under Rule 2(k)(i) and thus entitled them to Cenvat credit for excise duty paid on the kits.

Issue 2: Determination of Tool Kits as Accessories under Cenvat Credit Rules
The appellant contended that tool kits sold with two-wheelers are accessories of the final product, making them eligible for Cenvat credit as per Rule 2(k)(i). The appellant highlighted that Rule 138 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 mandates the inclusion of tool kits for every vehicle, establishing them as necessary accessories for vehicles. The Tribunal agreed that tool kits are essential accessories for vehicles as per statutory requirements, falling within the definition of 'input' under Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions supporting the inclusion of accessories in the definition of 'input,' further strengthening the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit on tool kits.

Issue 3: Comparison with Precedent Cases
The Tribunal distinguished the judgment of the Patna High Court in TELCO and the Tribunal's decision in Maruti Udyog Ltd., stating that they were not applicable to the current case governed by Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of 'input' under the Cenvat Credit Rules includes accessories, unlike the provisions in the cases cited by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's disallowance of Cenvat credit on tool kits sold with vehicles, to comply with statutory requirements, as unsustainable in law. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellant.