9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put into the process of utilization of salvaged parts. When the vehicle is brought back to the factory for the intended purposes as stipulated under Rule 16(1) the credit of duty paid on such vehicle is available to the appellant. That such vehicles undergo a process of manufacture and become part of process of production of new vehicle is settled and undisputed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1193/2012-MUM - A/86007/17/SMB - Dated:- 25-1-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri Sachin Chitnis, Advocate for the appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: YDB/34/2012 dated 30/04/2012 passed by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable and hence the appellant is required to reverse the CENVAT credit availed on the laboratory equipment which were received back. 5. I find that the issue is no more res integra. Provisions of Rule 16 as reproduced by the first appellate authority were considered in depth by the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - III 2002 (146) ELT 427 (Tri.-Del.) wherein, on identical issue, has held that manufacturing means put into the process of utilization of salvaged parts. Similar view was expressed by the bench in Maruti Udyog Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III 2016 (322) ELT 879 (Tri.-Del.) wherein in paragraph 6, after reproducing the provisions of Rule 16 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Commissioner misapplied the provision of Rule 16 and held that the Cenvat credit to the extent of salvaged parts will only be available to the appellant. We find no legal basis for such assertion. We find that the learned Commissioner invoked the provisions of Rule 16(3) to justify his action. We find the learned Commissioner is in complete error as he cannot prescribe a procedure to restrict the available credit as per law, in the name of removing difficulty in following the provisions of Rule 16(1) and (2). In fact we find no difficulty in appellant following the said provisions. Apart from this primary objection, we find there is no legal basis at all for apportioning the credit which is entitled to the appellant in terms of Rule 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... understand or appreciate the logic or legal basis for such conclusion. When the vehicle is brought back to the factory for the intended purposes as stipulated under Rule 16(1) the credit of duty paid on such vehicle is available to the appellant. That such vehicles undergo a process of manufacture and become part of process of production of new vehicle is settled and undisputed. As such, we find no legal basis for denial of credit either partly or fully in respect of such vehicles in terms of clear provisions of Rule 16(1), as discussed above. 6. Since both the judgment of the Maruti Udyog Ltd (supra), is passed by a Division Bench, the ratio is binding on me. Accordingly, applying the said ratio I find that the impugned order is u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
