9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture is also not the criteria for non-applicability of said Notification. Thus it is clear that the ground raised by the department supporting the order under challenge is not sustainable for denying the benefit of aforesaid Notification to the appellant. Further, there is no evidence by the department to show that the said goods were never captively consumed by the appellant - There is no denial to the fact the goods retained were used for further manufacture. This observation is sufficient to hold that the tools/dyes were kept with the appellant for the purpose of manufacturing motor vehicle parts in future also though only for M/s. Force Motors Ltd. The appellant has challenged the findings on the ground that the cost received by the appellant towards the manufacture of tools/dyes has been amortized by the appellant and for the said reason also appellant is not liable to discharge any duty of excise thereupon. It is observed that the Adjudicating Authority below has not considered the said contention for want of evidence in the form of certificate of Chartered Engineer - Apparently and admittedly, the same is not the fact of the present case. Further the manufacturer t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms. Priyanka Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms Tamana Alam, learned Authorised representative appearing for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that tools/dyes were manufactured in the factory of the appellant as per requirement of their customers (M/s. Force Motors Ltd.) However, as those tools/ dyes were not cleared from the factory of the appellant, the question of demanding Excise duty does not at all arise. It is submitted that the fact that those tools/dyes were invoiced to the customers and the consideration has been received by the appellant also cannot be the ground for claiming excise duty from the appellant for the following reasons: 1. The VAT liability on the said amount of consideration has already been discharged. 2. The amortized cost of those tools/dyes has already been included in the cost of motor vehicles parts manufactured by the appellant and the certificate of Technical Engineer was duly placed on record. 3. Since the tools/dyes were manufactured by the appellant and were kept by them for further use, the appellant was exempted from paying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held as follows:- Following are the admitted facts in the present case : 1) The appellant manufactured motor vehicle parts for M/s. Force Motors Ltd. 2) tools/dyes for manufacturing the same were also manufactured by the appellant 3) while clearing the said manufactured motor vehicles parts to M/s. Force Motors Ltd., the said manufactured tools/dyes were not cleared by the appellant for being used subsequently. 4) The duty on the cost of tools/dyes has not been paid by the appellant. 6. The moot question for adjudication in the light of above admitted facts, is : Whether the appellant is liable to pay Excise duty on the impugned tools/dyes and that benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 is not available to the appellant. 7. For the purpose, it is foremost necessary to look into the relevant legal provisions. Section 3 of Central Excise Act 1944 talks about the Excise duty to be levied and Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 talks about the manner of payment thereof. Conjoint reading of these provisions, makes it clear that the duty of excise is in relation to the manufacture and has to be paid when the manufactured goods are cleared from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stainable for denying the benefit of aforesaid Notification to the appellant. Further, there is no evidence by the department to show that the said goods were never captively consumed by the appellant. Rather in the findings of the Original Adjudicating Authority, there is an observation that the tools/dyes as were retained by the appellant were only to avoid double transportation thereof from the appellant factory to the factory of M/s. Force Motors Ltd. and then back from M/s. Force Motors Ltd. s factory to the appellant s factory. There is no denial to the fact the goods retained were used for further manufacture. This observation is sufficient to hold that the tools/dyes were kept with the appellant for the purpose of manufacturing motor vehicle parts in future also though only for M/s. Force Motors Ltd. 10. Further, I observe that the appellant has challenged the findings on the ground that the cost received by the appellant towards the manufacture of tools/dyes has been amortized by the appellant and for the said reason also appellant is not liable to discharge any duty of excise thereupon. It is observed that the Adjudicating Authority below has not considered the said co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
