2017 (2) TMI 1039 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - denial on the ground that the motor vehicle cleared by the Respondent did not suffer any duty - Held that - in the instant case M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. paid duty on body built motor vehicles and there is no loss of the revenue when the duty has been paid - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order denying benefit of Notification no. 67/95-CE
- Duty demand on seats manufactured and consumed captively
- Interpretation of Rule 57F(3)/(4) in relation to duty payment on seats
- Applicability of exemption under Notification no. 67/95-CE

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order denying the benefit of Notification no. 67/95-CE. The respondent was engaged in job work of body building for motor vehicles and manufactured seats under Chapter heading 9401. The department issued a show cause notice denying the benefit of the 1995 Notification as the motor vehicle did not suffer any duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand on seats, citing non-payment of excise duty due to incorrect classification under Chapter heading 8702, 8703, or 8704. However, the first appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.

During the hearing, it was noted that M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. had paid duty on the body built motor vehicles, and there was no revenue loss. The Ld. Advocate for the respondent relied on a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case. The Commissioner observed that the issue of duty demand on seats had been previously addressed, with the CESTAT remanding cases to the adjudicating authority. In the present case, it was found that M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. had paid duty on the motor vehicles, making the appellant eligible for exemption on the seats manufactured and consumed captively. Therefore, the demand of duty on the seats was deemed unsustainable due to the availability of exemption under Notification no. 67/95-CE.

Considering the precedent set by the earlier Tribunal decision and the fact that duty on the motor vehicles was paid, resulting in no revenue loss, the impugned order was upheld. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent.