9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product manufactured by the appellant is exclusively meant for the automobile industries for use as parts and components and are not capable for use in other purposes - Since the goods manufactured by the appellant are meant for use by other manufacturers also, such manufactured goods cannot be subjected to levy of central excise duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Reliance can be placed upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of J.K. TYRE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [ 2018 (2) TMI 611 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , to state that no differential duty liability can be fastened on to the appellants in terms of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, the duty liability cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 4A ibid based on the MRP rates. The matter was adjudicated by the impugned order dated 14.08.2009, wherein the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed differential central excise duty of ₹ 78,64,344/- under section 11A of the Act along with interest and also imposed penalty of ₹ 2.00 lakhs under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integra in view of the Final Order No. A/30414/2019, dated 21.02.2019 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Agarwal Rubber Limited. He also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of J.K. Tyre Industries Limited vs. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.S. Auto International Limited vs. CCE Chandigarh, as reported in [2003(152)ELT 3 (S.C.)] and CCE Vs. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited as reported in [2012(277)E.L.T. 299 (S.C.)] has held that the common parlance theory should be applied in order to ascertain whether the particular commodity is falling under specific entry either under the tariff or any notification issued by the Central Government. The relevant paragraph in the said order is extracted herein below: 3. We note that the Original Authority vide his order dated 10/09/2009 has given a very cryptic finding to the effect that in terms of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.S. Auto I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... International reported in 2011 (286) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) dealing with a sales tax matter the Hon ble Supreme Court in United Copiex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 28 (S.C.) held that rubber flaps cannot be classified as accessories of motor vehicles. The court also refer to Central Excise Tariff Act and mentioned that flaps are taxable under Tariff Heading 4012 . 7. In view of the above, we find substance in the submissions of the appellant that the duty liability cannot be fastened on it under Section 4A of the Act. Accordingly, after setting aside the impugned order, we allow the appeal in favour of the appellant. ( Dictated and pronounced in open court ) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
