Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 628 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

2016 (9) TMI 628 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH - 2016 (341) E.L.T. 305 (Tri. - Chan.) - Whether the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the cenvat Credit Rules are applicable or not and whether the Cenvat Credit shall lapse on 29.04.2008 when e-bikes became exempted from levy of duty or not - manufacture of exempted i.e. e-bikes and dutiable i.e. its parts - import of e-bikes in CKD condition and clearing the same alongwith indigenously procured battery and paying 10% of duty thereon - e-bikes are exempted from le .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

empted final product and assessee is liable to pay 10% of the value of e-bikes at the time of their clearance and the cenvat credit lying in their cenvat account shall not lapse wholly but the cenvat credit lying in their cenvat account attributable to inputs, work in progress and finished e-bikes shall lapse. As we hold that the provisions of Rule 6(3) are applicable to the facts of the present case, therefore, the provisions of Rules 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable. - Decid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e assessee and cleared the same on payment of duty. By way of notification No.25/2008 dt. 296.04.2008, the E-bikes were exempted from levy of duty, but the assessee preferred to pay 10 % value of the e-bikes on their clearance even after exemption notification of the premise that as assessee is manufacturing both e-bikes and parts thereof and parts are dutiable and assessee is not maintaining separate account of inputs of dutiable as well as exempted final products, therefore, as per Rule 6(3) o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to deny cenvat credit lying in their cenvat account on 29.04.2008 as per Rules 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 2004 and sought to demand duty on the E-bikes parts cleared by the appellant after 29.04.2008. The show cause notices were adjudicated, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand alongwith interest and penalties were also imposed. Some of the said orders were challenged by the assessee before the commissioner (Appels) who granted relief to the assessee. Aggrieved from the order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

res, in that circumstances the allegation of the Revenue is not sustainable as appellant is clearing e-bikes and parts thereof. Admittedly, w.e.f. 29.04.2008 e-bikes became exempt from duty but parts remain to be dutiable and the assessee was not maintaining separate account of dutiable as well as exempted goods, therefore, the assessee was paying 10% of the value of e-bikes at the time of their clearance and clearing parts of e-bikes on payment of duty by utilizing their cenvat account. In that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l lapse in terms of Rule 11(3) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, duty is demandable on clearance of parts of e-bikes by the assessee. 6. Heard the parties considered the submissions. 7. We find the after hearing the parties the issue is an under: (i) Whether the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the cenvat Credit Rules are applicable to the present case? (ii) Whether the Cenvat Credit shall lapse on 29.04.2008 when e-bikes became exempted from levy of duty or not? 8. The Facts of the case ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the cenvat credit lying in their cennot account on 29.04.2008 shall lapse as assessee is clearing e-bikes and parts prior to 29.04.2008 on payment of duty. 9. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed the same in the impugned order which is reproduced as under: 5. I have carefully gone through the records of the appeals as well as the submissions made by the appellants in the grounds of appeals. The issue involved in both the appeals is identical therefore, these are being taken up for d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hand appellants have argued that they are manufacturing two products namely E-bikes and parts of E-bikes. The latter gets manufactured as per Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act read with third schedule to the Central Excise Act and Notification No. 2/2006-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2006 or Notification No. 14/2008-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2008. Notification No. 49/2008-CE(NT) dated 24.12.2008. Appellants have also argued that credit accumulated, due to higher credit admissible on inputs and less duty leviable on E- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. In this regard, appellants has furnished a copy of their registration application, marked as Annexure-K to the appeal memorandum Serial No. 14 of this application and the declaration made by the Appellants while obtaining Central Excise Registration, is as follows: 14. Major excisable goods manufactured, warehoused or traded (description and CETSH) (Please see instruction No.15) (i) ELECTRIALLY OPERATED BIKES (E-BIKES) CH. HEADING 87119091 (ii)________ (iii)________ 7. From the above proforma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the month of March, 2009. Er-1 filed by the appellants with the department, clearly indicates E-bikes parts, falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8714, cleared during the relevant period alongwith the rate of duty and amount of duty paid in the relevant columns of ER-1 returns filed. Further, the returns filed by the appellants indicate the quantity manufactured, quantity cleared and the assessable value. In view of the above factual details, it cannot be said that Appellants were not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmon inputs, therefore they were required to discharge amounts as per Rule 6(3) of the Credit Rules for common inputs. It is established that appellants were clearing E-bikes parts on payment of Central Excise duty deemed manufactured goods then it has to be held that parts imported by the Appellants during the relevant period used for manufacturing both excisable E-bikes parts and fully exempted E-bikes, E-bike parts were always subjected to duty as deemed manufacture before and after issue of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecords. 71. However, as per para 3(iii) above appellants started importing E-bikes in CKD condition w.e.f. 01.07.2008 vide Bill of Entry No. 531 dt. 01.07.2008. It means part in CKD condition which distinguished from other common parts like batteries etc. The CKD parts were, therefore distinguishable and relatable to the finished E-bikes. The credit with respect to such CKD part lying as such or in works-in-progress or those contained in the finished E-bikes as on 29.04.2008 was required to be r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version