Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 14 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(122)ELT747(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. The appellants M/s Maruti Udyog Limited are engaged in the manufacture of various types of motor vehicles. The issue relates to interpretation of Notification No. 162/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986. In terms of aforesaid Notification the party claimed a concessional rate of duty of 30% ad valorem which was prescribed for saloon cars falling under Heading 8703.
2. Shri R. Swaminathan, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant, submitted that concessional rate of duty of 30% in terms of Notification has been denied on the sole ground that the party did not produce certificate for second time by the State Transport Authority. He submitted that on 31-3-1997 the Adjudicating Authority who adjudicated the proceedings in respect of saloon cars confirmed the demand in respect of 6683 cars on the ground that the party did not produce certificate for second time. Numbering 3394 cars were deferred against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner in respect of 6683 cars. The party has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal as per Order No. E/1311-1318/98-B, dated 21-8-1998 [2000 (124) E.L.T. 1175 (Tribunal)] decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that department was not justified in insisting the certificate for second time to allow the concession in terms of Notification No. 162/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. In this context, Shri Swaminathan drew our attention to the relevant paras therein. Para 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.6 are as follows :-
"9.1 We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. On a fair, reasonable and plain reading of the condition No. (2) of the notification 162/86-C.E., set out earlier, responsibility cast on the manufacturers appellants herein is to produce "Certificate from an officer authorised by the concerned State Transport Authority in this behalf within 3 months of the date of clearance of the saloon car by the manufacturer after payment of duty or such extended period as the said officer (Assistant Collector of CE) may allow, to the effect that each such saloon car has been registered for use solely as a taxi".
9.2. It is not disputed that such certificates have been produced by the appellants. Department is, therefore, required to look into those documents whether they satisfy the requirement of that certificate mentioned in Condition No. (2). If those documents (Certificates) show the registration of the vehicles for use solely as taxi, department should take such document to have satisfied the condition No. (2) and cannot demand duty. As observed by the Apex Court in Chunnilal Parshadi Lal (supra), on that analogy genuineness of the certificate and due correction made therein may be examined by the C.E. Department but not the correctness or truthfulness of the statement made in that certificate. It may examine, in other words, whether the certificate is forged or not or whether the manufacturer/appellant has colluded in procuring the forged document.
9.3. Notification 162/86-C.E. does not give the authority to the department to check and verify whether at the time of adjudicate on or satisfaction of condition No. (2) by the Assistant Collector, the vehicle is in use as a taxi and on verification of such a vehicle not being found to be used as a taxi, to demand duty from the manufacturer/appellants.
9.6. The department would, however, be at liberty to look into the certificates produced by the appellants at the first instance and examine them from the angles as held above and proceed against the appellants, if necessary, in accordance with the principles of natural justice."
3. Further, he submitted that not being satisfied with the said order the department has filed an appeal before the Apex Court. The Supreme Court as per Order dated 12th July, 1999 while dismissing observed that "This, however, is without prejudice to any remedy which the appellant may have under ordinary law against the end users".
4. Referring to the impugned order Shri Swaminathan submitted that the Adjudicating Authority in line with the earlier order confirmed the demand on the same ground that the party fails to produce the certificate for second time in respect of the 120 vehicles.
5. We find that the issue involved herein has already been considered and concluded by the Tribunal in the earlier order referred to above. In that case it was clearly held that department was not right in insisting the certificate for second time having verified the original certificate which was produced earlier. Further, the view taken by the Tribunal was affirmed by the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the previous ruling, we accept the plea of the party and accordingly appeal is allowed with consequential relief.