2016 (8) TMI 974 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Cess leviable under Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 - manufacture of agriculture tractors - Held that - contentions raised by the appellant do not stand properly considered by the adjudicating authority and the demand stand confirmed under the Automobile Cess Rules, which according to Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court s order in the case of Indo Farm Tractors & Motors Ltd. vs. Union of India 2007 (7) TMI 150 - HIGH COURT, HIMACHAL PRADESH are not applicable to tractors and subsequently amended notification and the fact that appellants engine are less than 1800 CC has not been considered by the adjudicating authority. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Cess under Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 on agriculture tractors.
2. Interpretation of relevant notifications regarding Cess on tractors below 1800 CC engine capacity.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing agriculture tractors, contested the demand of Cess leviable under the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984. The primary contention was that tractors should not attract Central Excise duty under these rules as they are not automobiles, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court. However, it was acknowledged that tractors are liable to Cess under the Tractor Cess Rules, 1992.

2. The specific grievance raised by the appellant was that tractors below 1800 CC engine capacity should not attract Cess. The appellant referred to an order from the Ministry of Industries and Company Affairs dated 6.9.1985, which initially levied Cess on tractors with power take-off exceeding 25 horse power. The appellant argued that the Cess confirmed was under the Automobile Cess Rules, even though not applicable to tractors, and the rate of duty applied was based on an outdated notification. Subsequently, an amended notification in 1993 changed the criteria to tractors exceeding an engine capacity of 1800 CC. The appellant contended that this amendment was overlooked by the adjudicating authority, and since their engines were less than 1800 CC, no Cess should be levied.

3. The Appellate Tribunal found that the contentions raised by the appellant were not adequately considered by the adjudicating authority. The demand was confirmed under rules not applicable to tractors, and the amended notification specifying the engine capacity criterion was ignored. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a reconsideration of all relevant facts by the adjudicating authority.

4. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the limitation aspect left open for further consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a proper assessment based on the correct legal provisions and notifications to determine the applicability of Cess on agriculture tractors, particularly those below 1800 CC engine capacity.