2015 (10) TMI 871 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Clearance of HDPE Pipes - Held that - When appellant is paying 10% of the value of HDEP pipes used for manufacturing of sprinkler system, the appellant is not required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of sprinkler system. Therefore, we hold that appellant is not required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of sprinkle system as they have paid 10% of the amount of HDEP pipes used in the manufacture of sprinkle system. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability on HDPE Sprinkler system and parts thereof.
2. Applicability of Rule 6(3)(B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002.
3. Interpretation of Tribunal's previous decision regarding payment of duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty liability on HDPE Sprinkler system and parts thereof
The appellant, a manufacturer of plastic pipes accessories, cleared HDPE Sprinkler system and parts at nil rate of duty, claiming they fall under CTH 8424.10 and are not liable for duty. However, the appellant was using HDEP pipes for manufacturing the Sprinkler system. A show cause notice was issued demanding an amount equal to 10% of the price of Sprinkler system cleared, as the appellant was not maintaining a separate Cenvat Credit Account for inputs. The tribunal found that the appellant had paid 10% of the value of HDEP pipes used in manufacturing the Sprinkler system, and therefore, they were not required to pay an additional 10% of the value of the Sprinkler system itself. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand of duty on the Sprinkler system.

Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 6(3)(B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002
The appellant's contention was based on the interpretation of Rule 6(3)(B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. The appellant argued that since they were already paying 10% of the value of the HDEP pipes used in manufacturing the Sprinkler system, they should not be required to pay an additional 10% of the value of the Sprinkler system itself. The tribunal agreed with this interpretation and held that the appellant had fulfilled their duty liability by paying for the raw material used in the manufacturing process, thereby exempting them from the additional duty on the final product.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Tribunal's previous decision regarding payment of duty
The tribunal referred to its previous decision in the appellant's own case, where it was held that paying 10% of the value of the raw material used in manufacturing a product exempts the manufacturer from paying an additional 10% of the value of the final product. By applying this precedent, the tribunal concluded that the appellant was not required to pay duty on the Sprinkler system beyond what they had already paid for the HDEP pipes. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief as necessary.