2017 (6) TMI 903 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption from payment of Special Excise Duty (SED) - N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 - seventh tyre cannot be said to be used in the manufacture of excisable goods in terms of N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 rendering them ineligible for the exemption - Held that - The Motor Vehicle Act has statutorily required motor vehicles to have seven tyres six tyres fitted to the chassis and seventh as a spare tyre. At the point of sale of the motor vehicle, only six tyres have been found fitted on the chassis. Such being the case, the contention of the appellant that the seventh tyre also has been used in the motor vehicle cannot be appreciated - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No.6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 regarding the usage of tyres in the manufacturing process.
- Compliance with Motor Vehicles Act requirement of clearance with seven tyres.
- Alleged breach of conditions of Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002.
- Exemption eligibility for tyres/tubes/flaps used in the manufacture of motor vehicles.
- Justification of duty demand due to breach of notification conditions.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against the order confirming a demand for special excise duty and imposition of penalties on the appellant for allegedly selling motor vehicles without the seventh tyre, rendering them ineligible for exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002.

2. The appellant argued that the notification only pertains to the usage of tyres in the manufacturing process and does not extend to sales from Regional Sales Offices (RSO), contending that compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act's clearance requirement suffices.

3. The Department contended that the appellant breached the notification conditions by selling vehicles with only six tyres, despite procuring tyres under concessional duty for use in manufacturing motor vehicles.

4. The Bench questioned the removal of the seventh tyre at the point of sale, emphasizing the statutory requirement of motor vehicles to have seven tyres as per the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant's argument that all seven tyres were used in manufacturing was deemed untenable.

5. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals, as it found the appellant's compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act and usage of all seven tyres unconvincing, thereby justifying the duty demand due to the breach of notification conditions. The statutory requirement of seven tyres on motor vehicles at the point of sale was a crucial factor in the decision.

6. The judgment highlighted the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions and notification conditions, emphasizing that mere usage in manufacturing does not absolve the appellant from adhering to the Motor Vehicles Act's specific requirements, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals.