TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not paid the amount of 8% of the value of chassis at the time of clearance of motor vehicle, therefore, the respondent has not paid the correct amount under Rule 6 (3) (b) of CCR, 2001 - demand of duty alongwith interest upheld. Penalty - As there is a difference opinion on the issue of imposing penalty on the respondent, therefore the matter be placed before the Hon’ble President to appoint third Member to resolve - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty on the respondent can be imposed or not ? - Appeal No. E/2516/2007-Ex(DB) - Final Order No. 61026/2017, Interim Order No.01/2017 - Dated:- 5-6-2017 - Hon ble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial), Hon ble Mr.Devender Singh, Member (Technical) And Anil G. Shakka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant had availed modvat/cenvat credit in respect of duty paid on other inputs, the goods cleared by the appellant were found to be not eligible for exemption. The respondent had paid an amount equal to 8% on the value of the bodies only, fabricated/mounted on the chases received from the private customer on the clearance of the vehicles under Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The provisions of this Rule did not appear to be applicable to the appellant as the goods under consideration were not exempted. Therefore, the show cause notices were issued to the respondent which was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority. The demands were confirmed alongwith interest and penalty was also imposed penalties. The said order was challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent has taken the credit on other inputs, therefore, the respondent is not entitled for exemption. Moreover, the case of the Revenue is that the respondent has availed exemption, in that circumstance, the goods to be treated as exempted goods and the respondent is liable to pay 8% of the value of the exempted goods which means chassis plus body. Admittedly, in this case, the respondent has not paid the amount of 8% of the value of chassis at the time of clearance of motor vehicle, therefore, the respondent has not paid the correct amount under Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. In that circumstance, we set aside the impugned order, confirm the demand of duty and upheld the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such vehicle has been taken under Rule 57AB or Rule 57AK of the C.E.R., 1944. 10.3 The above condition is clear and unambiguous. It has two parts. The first part states that no credit of duty paid on the chassis is taken. The second part states that no credit of duty paid on other inputs is taken. The party did not take cenvat credit of duty paid on the chassis received from the customer but had taken cenvat credit on the other inputs used in the manufacture of such vehicles. As the party had availed modvat/cenvat credit in respect of duty paid on other inputs, the goods cleared by the party were found to be not eligible for exemption. The act of not availing credit on chassis and availing on other inputs shows that it has been done d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court reported as 1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC) and 2006 (133) ECR 0150 (SC). In the instant case , the exempted goods are described as complete motor vehicles under Notification No. 3/2001 dt. 1.3.2001 and 6/2002 dt. 1.3.2002. The total pricereferred in Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2001 shall refer to the assessable value of complete motor vehicle, as per Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff. However, I find that the noticee had reversed / paid an amount to 8% of the value of the bodies of the motor vehicles whereas they were required to pay 8% of the total value of the exempted goods i.e. complete motor vehicle manufactured by them. Therefore, it is proved that they have neither fulfilled the condition of Rule 6(3)(b) of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Difference of opinion As there is a difference opinion on the issue of imposing penalty on the respondent, therefore the matter be placed before the Hon ble President to appoint third Member to resolve the following issue:- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty on the respondent can be imposed or not ? ( Order pronounced in the court on 19.01.2017 ) Per : Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar Heard the parties and perused the record. 13. Ld. Brother Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical) in Para 10.5 has held that in the case of reversal of Cenvat credit, there is no ambiguity that 8% of the total value of exemption goods was to be reversed. Still, they reversed/ paid an amount to 8% of the value of bodies o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
