Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Rane Trw Steering Systems Ltd. vs Cce on 19 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(92)ECC395
ORDER P.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 15/2003, dated 31.1.2003. The appellants are manufacturer of Power Steering Gear System and Parts falling under the heading No. 8708 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They cleared the goods on payment of duty to buyers and the duty paid by the buyers was returned as defectives was availed as credit by the appellants. Thereafter, they carried out necessary repairs and cleared the goods again on payment of duty. The department contended that when the defective goods are returned to them, they were not to have availed the Modvat Credit paid by them. However, the appellant contended that after repair they had paid back the credit availed at the time of their return. The credit allowed by the appellants was disallowed by the impugned order, on the ground that the availment of credit by the appellants on their own final product was not in order, as the returned goods are not re-manufactured but only subjected to repair. However, the appellants relied on a large judgements rendered by the Tribunal as noted in the impugned order in support of their claim:-
(i) CCE v. Komal Metals Pvt. Ltd., - 1995 (77) ELT 588 (CT)
(ii) PL Agro. Technologies Ltd., - 2000 (67) ECCT 67 (Tri)
(iii) Bansal Autoparts Industries 1998 (28) RLT 168
(iv) 1998 (79) ECR 850
(v) CCE v. Tin Manufacturing Company 2000 (199) ELT 290 However, the Commissioner did not accept the order on the ground that the judicial pronouncements relied on by the appellants are not specific to the issue as has been rendered in the case of Bharat Gears Ltd. v. CCE 1998 (87) ELT 668 (Tri.), wherein, the automative goods had been returned and the Modvat Credit had been reversed. However, in that case the goods were not sent back after repair on payment of duty.
2. Ld. Advocate Shri. S.Jaikumar submits that the judgement rendered in the case of Bharat Gears Ltd., is distinguishable. He submits that in their own matter, the Assistant Commissioner, had, under his Order-in-Original No. 34/2000, dated 2.3.2000 has already dropped the proceedings on the same issue following the judgements cited in the impugned order. He submits that the facts of this case was Tribunal's order rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Hirsch Watch Straps Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1997 (91) ELT 174 (Tri.), and the same would apply.
3. Ld. DR filed detailed submissions on behalf of the Department and contended that the appellants should not have reversed the Modvat Credit and the Judgement of the Bharat Gears Ltd., would apply. In the case of Bharat Gears Ltd., the defective goods came back and Modvat Credit had been availed but later on the goods had been repaired and not sent back for on payment of duty and hence, the facts are distinguishable. However, in that case the goods were not sent back after repair on payment of duty. The present case fall within the ambit of the judgement rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Hirsch Watch Straps Pvt. Ltd., and the observations made in Para 4 are reproduced herein below:-
"the issue involved was that the defective product returned was made into a product of different sizes. Thus, the facts of this case are different and are not exactly applicable to the present issue, whereas, the case of Bharat Gears Ltd., is more relevant to the issue under dispute".
4. On a careful consideration, I notice that the appellants had paid the duty again on the required goods. Therefore, there is a revenue neutrality in the matter and I apply the ratio of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Hirsch Watch Straps Pvt. Ltd., Impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed.