2005 (12) TMI 141 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs credit of duty paid on tool kits - whether supply of tool kits with motor vehicle could be construed as used in or in relation to manufacture of motor vehicle - HELD THAT - We agree with the respondents that they cannot be directed to pay back the entire credit taken on duty paid tool kits without first adjusting the same against the excess duty paid on the value of the motor vehicles/chassis by inclusion of value of tool kits which was not required to be included. However, since the material on record is not sufficient to determine whether the value of tool kits was included in the assessable value of motor vehicle/chassis cleared by the respondents during the relevant period, we remand this aspect for fresh decision to the jurisdictional Addl. Commissioner who shall verify as to whether the respondents had actually included the value of tool kits in the assessable value of motor vehicle/chassis cleared by them during the period in dispute and then adjust the amount of credit disallowed against the excess duty, if any, paid on the value of motor vehicle/chassis by such inclusion, and recover the difference. He shall pass fresh orders after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and allowing them to place documentary evidences on record to substantiate their contention in this regard. It is open to the respondents to agitate the issue of wrong quantification of credit before him. As regards penalty, we see force in the submission of the respondents that since the issue is entirely one of interpretation of law, it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty, and therefore, reject the prayer of the Revenue for restoration of the penalty imposed upon them by the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal is partly allowed as above - Cross Objection is also disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of modvat credit on tool kits supplied with motor vehicles and chassis.
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Inclusion of the value of tool kits in the assessable value of motor vehicles/chassis.
4. Admissibility of modvat credit on tool kits.
5. Imposition of penalty based on the interpretation of the law.

Issue 1: The Appellate Tribunal dealt with the disallowance of modvat credit on tool kits supplied with motor vehicles and chassis. The notices sought to disallow modvat credit amounting to Rs. 88,00,854.60, contending that tool kits were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of motor vehicles as required by Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The assessees argued that tool kits were essential for certain vehicle segments and relied on a Larger Bench decision supporting the admissibility of modvat credit on tool kits. The Addl. Commissioner disallowed the credit, citing a High Court decision and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision based on a different Tribunal decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: The Tribunal analyzed the imposition of penalties under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Rules. The respondents argued against the penalties, stating that the issue was a matter of legal interpretation, not warranting penalties. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, rejecting the Revenue's plea for restoring the penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue 3: The question of including the value of tool kits in the assessable value of motor vehicles/chassis was raised by the respondents. They contended that if modvat credit on tool kits was not admissible, they should not be required to pay back the credit as the value of tool kits had already been included in the assessable value of the vehicles. The Tribunal remanded this aspect for further examination by the jurisdictional Addl. Commissioner to verify if the value of tool kits was indeed included in the assessable value, allowing the respondents to provide evidence to support their claim.

Issue 4: The Tribunal addressed the admissibility of modvat credit on tool kits, ultimately concurring with the view that tool kits were not inputs for vehicles, and hence, the benefit of modvat credit on duty paid tool kits was not available to the respondents.

Issue 5: Regarding the imposition of penalties based on the interpretation of the law, the Tribunal sided with the respondents, stating that since the issue primarily involved legal interpretation, it was not appropriate to impose penalties. As a result, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request to reinstate the penalties imposed on the respondents.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing further examination on the inclusion of the value of tool kits in the assessable value of motor vehicles/chassis and rejecting the imposition of penalties based on the legal interpretation issue.