9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts to manufacture, they had cleared the Vehicle applying the normal tariff rate as applicable from time to time. The approach of the Department is fallacious from the very beginning. Assuming that the conditions of the notification 06/2006-CE have not been complied with, by availing CENVAT credit on the duty paid chassis, the appellant would not have been eligible to the benefit of the notification and the manufactured goods would be assessed in accordance with the normal provisions. Secondly, Explanation appended Sl.No.41(1)(ii) provides that the value of the manufactured vehicle shall be the value of the vehicle excluding the value of the chassis used in such vehicle, whereas, in the present case, the appellant has added the body building charges and the value of the chassis supplied free of cost in computing the assessable value for the purpose of payment of duty for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08; hence it is incorrect to allege that the appellant had availed the benefit of the said Notification - the appellants are entitled to avail cenvat credit on the duty paid chassis supplied free of cost by M/s. ALL to the appellant. Valuation and differential duty - HELD THAT:- The peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 103 numbers of duty paid chassis during December 2006 to March 2008 from M/s.ALL for building bus bodies on the said chassis; availed cenvat credit on the duty paid chassis and after building the body on the same cleared the Vehicle to M/s. ALL on payment of duty on the aggregate value of the chassis and cost of body building. It is alleged that the appellant had cleared such bus bodies as per entry Sl.No.41(1)(ii) of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006 but availed cenvat credit on the chassis in violation of condition 10 appended to the said Notification and also utilized the same towards payment of excise duty on the said bus bodies cleared to M/s. ALL, show-cause notice was issued to them on 03/04/2009 proposing denial of cenvat credit availed and recovery of the differential central excise duty of Rs.9,51,837/- on the assessable value as per Rule 10A of the Central Excise valuation Rules, 2000 along with interest and penalty. Later corrigendum / addendum to the said show-cause notice dated 31/03/2009 was issued on 11/01/2010 proposing to recover cenvat credit taken on 103 numbers of duty paid chassis from December 2008 to March 2008 amounting to Rs.1,03,63,512/- and uti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the body build vehicle as per applicable provision of law. In spite of the said submissions, from the commencement of the proceedings after audit of their records, the learned Commissioner has held otherwise. They have submitted that payment of duty as per the provisions of law without resorting to concessional payment of duty as envisaged under Sl.No.41(1)(ii) of Notification No.6/2006-CE cannot result into violation of the condition no. 10 attached thereto. This aspect has never been appreciated by the Department. Also, in the impugned order, it has not been appreciated that the appellant had included the value of chassis (supplied free of cost by the customer) and paid duty at normal rate on the assessable value being aggregate value of chassis and body building even though in the exemption Notification the value of the chassis is not to be included in arriving at the assessable value of the vehicle. The finding of the learned Commissioner is contrary to the principle of law of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Dai Ichi karkaria Limited [1999(112) ELT 353 (SC)]; Incab Industries ltd. Vs. CCE [1998(98) ELT 560 (Tri.)] affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andard Co. Ltd. Vs. UOI [1992(60) ELT 671 (SC)] and in Texmaco Ltd. Vs. CCE [1995(77) ELT 501 (SC)]. Therefore, invocation of extended period in confirming the demand alleging suppression of fact is unsustainable. Further they have submitted that imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is also not justified as there is no mens rea or culpable mental state and also there is no violation of law with intent to evade payment of duty. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. He has submitted that the appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006 without reversing the cenvat credit availed on the duty paid chassis supplied free of cost to the appellant for body building. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The issues involved in the present case for determination are: whether: (i) the appellant has discharged appropriate duty on the body building activity on the duty paid chassis supplied free of cost by M/s ALL during the period 2006-07 2007-08; (ii) the appellants are entitled to avail cenvat credit of the duty paid on the chassis supplied free by M/s ALL. and (iii) the demand is barred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that from the very beginning of the proceeding, in their reply to the internal audit, the appellants have categorically submitted that they have not opted for the exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.3.2006, hence, not required to comply with the conditions prescribed under the said notification. They have informed that by availing cenvat credit on the duty paid chassis and after undertaking the activity of body building on the Chassis, which amounts to manufacture, they had cleared the Vehicle applying the normal tariff rate as applicable from time to time. But the Department continued to allege that the appellant had violated the condition No.10 appended to the said notification by availing cenvat credit on the duty paid chassis supplied free of cost to them by M/s. ALL; hence the credit is inadmissible to them. 12. We find the approach of the Department is fallacious from the very beginning. Assuming that the conditions of the notification 06/2006-CE have not been complied with, by availing CENVAT credit on the duty paid chassis, the appellant would not have been eligible to the benefit of the notification and the manufactured goods would be assessed in acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
