Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Telco Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2001(131)ELT420(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the disallowance of Modvat credit on spare wheel carriers, extra tyre, seventh wheel rim, hydraulic jack LCV/HCV, chassis record bag, dash board cover and electric storage battery.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufacture the chassis. They claimed Modvat credit on the above items. The authorities below disallowed Modvat credit on the above items and hence this appeal.
3. Shri G. Shivdas, ld. Advocate with Shri Shankar Vyas, ld. Advocate submits that insofar as the extra tyre and seventh wheel rim are concerned, their case is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in their own case contained in Final Order Nos. A/846-49/98-NB, dated 18-9-1998. He submits that insofar as the spare wheel carriers are concerned, the matter has been remanded for verification whether the cost of spare wheel carriers was included in the value of chassis or not. He submits that insofar as the hydraulic jack LCV/HCV is concerned, the matter is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal contained in Final Order No. A/1038/97-NB, dated 13- 10-1997 in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited. In regard to the chassis record bag and dash board cover, Ld. Advocate submits that since the amounts are very low, he is not pressing them. He submits that the only item that remains now is electric storage battery. He submits that the chassis manufactured by them on which they have claimed Modvat credit for another battery is for chassis used for building bus body. He submits that earlier in their own case, the Tribunal had disallowed Modvat credit on additional battery on the ground that the additional battery was used for lighting purposes when body is built on the chassis as bus body. He submits that in the instant case, no doubt chassis is also used for other than bus body but for operation of the chassis of this particular type 24 volt current is essential. He submits that the authorities below had termed it as an additional battery. He refers to the Operators Manual and submits that 24 volt battery is essential for the operation of bus chassis for which they have claimed Modvat credit on 2 batteries. He submits that 24 volt current is obtained by putting two batteries and thus this battery was not additional battery but was another battery essential for operation of the chassis manufactured by them. He submits that since the chassis on which they claimed another battery 24 volt current is required is bus chassis, therefore, he prays that Modvat credit on this bus chassis may be allowed for another battery also.
4. Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR, submits that the assessee is manufacturing not only bus chassis but also truck chassis. He submits that if another battery is allowed for bus chassis it will be on condition to ensure that the benefit is limited to bus chassis. He submits that in case Modvat credit is allowed on this additional battery it will lead to difficulties latter on. He reiterates the findings of the authorities below.
5. Heard the rival submissions. We find that the extra wheel, seventh wheel rim and hydraulic jack are already covered by the decision of this Tribunal. We do not see any reason to disagree with those decision. We, therefore hold that Modvat credit will be admissible on extra tyre and seventh wheel rim and hydraulic jack.
6. Insofar as the spare wheel carriers are concerned, we note that in an earlier order of this Tribunal in their own case, the matter has been remanded for verification whether the cost of spare wheel carrier is included in the assessable value of the chassis or not. We follow the same course in the case of spare wheel carriers and remand the matter in respect of these items to the authorities below to examine whether the value of spare wheel carrier is included if it is included then Modvat credit will be admissible.
7. Insofar as the electric storage batteries are concerned, we find that the item is claimed as another/additional battery for bus chassis. Since the appellants are not manufacturing bus chassis only but also are manufacturing other chassis. For particular type i.e. LP 1312 chassis, we, therefore, allow Modvat credit on another battery. However, it is essential to verify that only bus chassis LP 1312 another battery is also fitted at the time of clearance of the chassis and also that this is not an optional accessory, therefore this part of the appeal is also remanded.
8. Ld. Counsel did not press claim of Modvat on chassis record bag and dash board cover, therefore no orders are being passed on these items.
9. In view of the above findings, the appeal is partly allowed and partly remanded.