Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (8) TMI 226 - Central Excise
Benefit of Exemption Notification - On receipt of certain amounts for tools/dyes as well as for manufacture of motor vehicle parts, it was observed that the said motor vehicle parts have been cleared to M/s. Force Motors Ltd. without payment of Central Excise duty - 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? - reversal of CENVAT credit - interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Apparently and admittedly, the tools/dyes were not cleared by the appellant despite being manufactured by it and the duty liability has been denied claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 67/95 –CE dated 16.03.1995.
As observed from the Notification, the same is absolutely silent about the sale of manufactured goods to be a criteria for non applicability of said Notification. It only says that the goods to seek exemption should be the goods manufactured by the assessee and should have been retained by the assessee for further manufacture. Customized 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 therein has not amortized the cost of tools/dyes manufactured by him rather it included the said cost in the cost of components manufactured out of said tools/dyes. Apparently and admittedly this also is not the fact of the present case. That in the purchase order, the amount of cost of tools/dyes (moulds manufactured by the appellant) included in the cost of tools manufactured by the appellant out of said moulds but the tax invoices are revealing appropriate amortization of the cost of said moulds.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.