9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee had himself admitted that they have claimed the rebate only on the duty paid by M/s. Tata Motors Limited at the time of clearance of the chassis. As per para 1.5(iii) Chapter 8 Part V of the C.B.E. & C. Manual the rebate cannot be claimed on duty paid excisable material (input) (here chassis) used in the manufacture of export goods where facility of input stage credit is availed under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. In the instant case the Cenvat credit on chassis part is already availed by the job workers which, in case of rebate, will amount to double benefit. Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 – sale-cum-delivery Challan submitted by applicant cannot be treated as Invoice issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Moreover, the said Sale-cum-Delivery Challan issued by Tata Motor Sales Office does not contain the details of duty payment either on chassis or vehicle. As such the duty paid character of exported goods is not proved. Therefore, rebate claim is not admissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 – Revision application rejected – Against the assessee. - F. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent had failed to produce the duplicate copies of invoices mentioned in the ARE-1s. The respondent did not have proper duty paying documents in their name since the said invoices were issued in the name of job workers and the invoices, under which the Fully Fabricated Vehicles(FBVs) were cleared are in the name of M/s. Tata Motors, with address of their regional sales office. The respondent had only produced the sale cum delivery challan issued in their name by the RSO of M/s. Tata Motors, which did not give any details of duty paid, either on the chassis or the vehicle and, thus, the said invoices cannot be considered as issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3.3 The Superintendent, Jamshedpur Range is not the proper authority to certify the duty payment, shown in ARE-1 since the vehicles were cleared from the factories of M/s. Commercial Engg. Body Builders Co. P. Ltd., Jabalpur, and M/s. Hyva (India) P. Ltd., Bangalore and the said Superintendent was not aware of the onward movement of finished goods, from the place of job workers. 3.4 The Cenvat credit of duty paid on chassis was availed by the job workers, i.e. body builders, on the basis of duplicate i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. at the time of clearance of the chassis fitted with various components in their capacity as consignees. After the activity of body building was carried out by the aforesaid job workers the vehicles were to be returned to M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., as manifest from the fact that the subject Billing as per the said invoices was to the concerned Regional Sales Offices of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. Furthermore, the chassis number and the Engine number of the subject vehicles was figuring in the excise challans issued by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. The applicants had procured the fully Fabricated vehicles (FBVs) from the Regional Sales Office (RSO) at Calicut of the manufacturer M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. The vehicle sales invoices issued by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. also gave the details of the chassis number and the engine number. The chassis number and the engine number were also mentioned in the ARE-1s, which were duty verified by the concerned excise officers of the applicant s range i.e. Thodupuzha Range. Thus the vehicles exported by the applicants were clearly co-relatable with the excise challans issued M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. All the corresponding documents such as ARE-1 (orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was put forth to the applicants in the deficiency memo-cum show cause notice issued to the applicants. It is thus manifest that the lacuna perceived by the Commissioner (Appeals) is extraneous to the proceedings and has no bearing on the sustainability of the rebate claim. (ii) As far as the issue of availment of Cenvat credit by the job workers is concerned it is submitted that the fully built vehicles have been received by the applicants. From the commercial invoices issued in favour of the applicants it is manifest that the price charged to the applicants is cum duty price. Thus even if Cenvat credit has been availed by the job workers the fully fabricated vehicles would be removed by the job workers on payment of duty on the vehicles. The aspect has been verified by the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) by making inquiries with the jurisdictional Range Superintendents of the body builders and rebate was sanctioned to the applicants only after ascertaining that proper duty had been paid by the said body builders at the time of clearance of the vehicles. The factum of internal transit of vehicles was also verified before the sanction of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently erroneous and unsustainable. 5. The case was fixed for personal hearing on 28-9-11. Shri P.J. Leons, Director appeared for hearing on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody appeared for personal hearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. Government has considered the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. In this instant case, Government observes that the applicants had purchased the impugned goods i.e. fully fabricated vehicles from M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Regional Sales Office at Calicut and exported the same. Their contention is that since the said vehicles were duty paid nature hence they are eligible for rebate benefit under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The department s basic plea is that the applicant had only produced the sale-cum delivery challan issued in their name by the Regional Sales Office of M/s. Tata Motors which did not give any details of duty paid either on the chassis or the vehicles and that cannot be considered as issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. They further contended that c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
