TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat credit lying in their cenvat account on 29.04.2008 shall lapse as appellant is clearing e-bikes and parts prior to 29.04.2008 on payment of duty - provisions of Rule 11(3) of the CCR are not applicable. Appellant was not maintaining separate account for inputs used in manufacturing of e-bikes and parts thereof, therefore, provisions of Rule 6(3) are squarely applicable to the appellant as the appellant is manufacturing both dutiable and exempted final product and appellant 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat credit lying in their cenvat account on 29.04.2008 as per Rule 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 appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) who granted relief to the appellant. Aggrieved from the adjudication order, the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is importing e-bikes in CKD condition and filing bills of entry thereof and procuring battery to run these e-bikes from indigenous market and clearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up before this Tribunal in appellant s own case (Supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: We find that after hearing the parties the issue is as 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 are not in dispute that appellant is importing e-bikes in CKD condition and clearing the same alongwith indigenously procured battery and paying duty thereon. Therefore, the e-bikes has became exempt from duty w.e.f. 29.04.2008. It is also admitted fact that as appellant was not maintaining separate account of inputs, therefore, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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-bikes, over a period of time and discharging of liability as per Rule 6(3) by the Appellants was correct and in accordance with prescribed law. 6. Adjudicating authority in para 4.7 and 4.4 of the impugned orders, both dated 30.09.2010, has held that registration granted to the Appellants on 05.02.2007 was mentioning only E-bikes, falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 87119091 as their manufactured product, therefore, it cannot be considered that appellants were manufacturing E-bikes parts. In this regard, appellants has furnished a copy of their registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Tariff Heading 8714, during the relevant period. Therefore, findings of the Adjudicating Authority that only E-bikes were manufactured and no other dutiable product was manufactured by the Appellants is not factually correct. Further, the batteries for E-bikes were become imported as E-bikes in CKD condition as observed from the bills of entry relied upon by the appellants. As no separate accounts were maintained by the Appellants for common 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29.04.2010 under rule 11 of the Credit Rules. 8. Based on the above observations, the appeals filed by the Appellants are required to be allowable partially on merits. However, no penalty is imposable upon the appellants in this case because the entire facts were known to the department and proper ER-1 returns were also filed with the department indicating payment on duty on clearance of E-bikes part. Therefore, there was no suppression or mis-statement on the part of the Appellants to evade any duty . 10. I do agree with the observations made by the ld. Commissioner (appeals) and hold that as appellant was not maintaining separate account for inputs used in manufacturing of e-bikes and parts thereof, therefore, provisions of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
