CCE Vs. TVS SUZUKI LTD.
LAWS(CB)-2000-8-1
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE
Decided on August 17,2000

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S.SEKHON,MEMBER (T) - (1.)THIS reference application has been filed by Revenue against an order of this Bench No. 306 to 308/99 dated 5.2.1999. The manufacturers M/s. TVS Suzuki Ltd., were availing modvat credit on certain inputs received by them. They were sending the same to job worker for manufacture of an intermediate product namely speedometer assembly which was then received back on payment of duty on an invoice and the challan under Rule 57F(2) on which they were removed from M/s. TVS Suzuki premises to the job workers. The lower authorities had denied the credit availed by M/s. TVS Suzuki Ltd. on the inputs received by them and removed to the job worker for manufacture of Speedometer assembly but had allowed credit of duty which was paid by the job worker on the said speedometer assembly. The Tribunal vide above said had passed a detailed order on the following consideration: - -
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides as well as the records of the case. We find that the facts of the present two appeals are identical to the facts which were considered by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Facit Asia Ltd. (supra), in as much as in that case also the inputs namely plastic raw materials were first received by the appellants, after taking modvat credit and then in view of the permission granted under Rule 57F(2), they were sent to job workers for manufacture of intermediate product i.e. components. When these intermediate products were received back on payment of duty, the manufacturer had taken credit of the duty paid thereon also. In view of the subject matter in the present appeals being exactly the same, we find that the ratio of the findings in the case of Facit Asia Ltd. is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Respectfully applying the said ratio, we find that the Orders -in -Appeal impugned are liable to be set aside and the appeals are allowed. Ordered accordingly.

The order relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Facit Asia Ltd. as in, 1991 (54) 347 (T) :, 1992 (40) ECR 237 (T), a reference application in Form E.A. 6 is said to have been filed. However, no decision in that case was produced before us. Therefore, we take up this matter without a reference to that application which is said to have been filed in the case of M/s. Facit Asia Ltd.

(2.)WE have considered the submissions of Ld. Advocate and the Ld. DR an after considering the same find - -
a) in the case of CCE Madras v. Mis. TVS Lucas Ltd. as in, 1995 (78) ELT 709 (T) :, 1995 (60) ECR 512 (T) it has been held that processing under Rule 57F(2) calls for procedural accountal. However, it is not understood as how the reliance from this decision would call for a reference in the present case since no allegation of misaccounting or incorrect accounting of Rule 57F(2) procedure has been established or lodged in this case.

b) Similarly, reliance of M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. as reported in, 1995 (77) ELT 474 (SC) :, 1995 (58) ECR 569 (SC) is that for interpreting an exemption notification strict construe is essential would not be relevant for considering this reference application. We have also considered the other case of M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. as in, 1983 (12) ELT 0349 (DEL) relied upon by the Revenue regarding the exemption clause interpretation. These two decisions relied upon by Revenue are not considered to be relevant since we are not interpreting an exemption notification.

(3.)THE question here involves Rule 57F(2) of modvat rules, which is beneficial legislation to give benefit of inputs duties paid and not eligibility of exemption notification and therefore we do not find any case law relied upon in the present reference application to be relevant to the issues herein.
We have considered the question of law as framed in the present reference application and find that the order of this Tribunal does not deviate from the wordings of Rule 57F(2); as we do not find any duty to be wrongly paid which is being taken credit of. In any case even if duties are wrongly paid, it is for the job worker to go in appeal against such wrong payment to establish wrong payment. As no evidence has been brought forth that duty of which credit was taken when the inputs were received by M/s. TVS Suzuki Ltd. were wrongly paid, we do not understand as to which duty is being considered to be wrongly paid in the facts of this case. Therefore, we do not consider any material in the grounds to make a reference in this case. The reference application is therefore found to be without any substance and is rejected.

(Pronounced and dictated in open court).



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.