2008 (6) TMI 121 - AT - Central Excise

Not. No. 6/2002, conditional notification granting only partial exemption - Assessee s submissions that notification cannot be forced on them, is valid - provisions of S. 5A (1A) can t not be applied to them not. no. 6/2002 bars credit of duty paid only on chassis - if there was no bar on taking credit on chassis as a condition in the notification, then Rule 3(7) would not be applicable Commissioner s view that as explanation to Rule 3(7), they are not eligible to take credit is incorrect

Issues:
- Admissibility of Cenvat credit on duty paid chassis and other inputs
- Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2002 dated 01.03.2002
- Applicability of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Levy of additional basic excise duty on chassis
- Conflict between Section 5A (1A) and Rule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules

Analysis:

Admissibility of Cenvat credit on duty paid chassis and other inputs:
The appellant, a body building unit, received duty paid chassis from a manufacturer and took cenvat credit on the duty paid on chassis and other inputs. The body built vehicle was cleared after discharging duty on the entire value, including the chassis. The Commissioner held that the appellant utilized inadmissible credit and confirmed a demand under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that they were eligible for credit as they procured duty paid chassis and fulfilled the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not avail the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002 and allowed the appeal.

Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2002 dated 01.03.2002:
The notification granted partial exemption subject to specified conditions. The appellant contended that the notification's conditions did not bar them from taking credit on other inputs. The Department argued that since the body built vehicle was granted exemption on the condition of not availing credit on duty paid chassis, the appellant could not take credit. The Tribunal held that the notification's conditional nature did not compel the appellant to avail it, and thus, it could not be forced upon them.

Applicability of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
Rule 3 allows credit on specified duties paid on inputs subject to conditions. The Tribunal emphasized that the term 'any inputs' in the rule encompasses 'all inputs.' It clarified that when an exemption is granted with a condition of not availing credit, the assessee cannot benefit from both the lower duty rate and cenvat credit, as this would lead to double benefits. The Tribunal concluded that Rule 3(7) aims to prevent such double benefits and should be applied only when the exemption bars credit on all inputs.

Levy of additional basic excise duty on chassis:
The dispute arose due to the additional basic excise duty on chassis, which the appellant utilized for paying the body built vehicle duty. The Tribunal noted that the appellant saved Rs. 10,000 by not availing the notification, reflecting the impact of the extra duty solely on the chassis.

Conflict between Section 5A (1A) and Rule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules:
Section 5A (1A) clarifies that absolute exemptions do not apply when conditions are not met. The Tribunal highlighted that the conditional nature of Notification No. 6/2002 did not align with the provisions of Section 5A (1A), emphasizing that the appellant was not obligated to avail the exemption. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

← Previous Next →