2017 (5) TMI 874 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed for revenue, remanded for re-examination. Dismissal of KWL's appeal due to non-contestation.

The revenue's appeal against the dropping of demand and non-imposition of penalty on M/s. Klassic Wheels P. Ltd. was allowed by the Tribunal, remanding ... CENVAT credit - tubes and tyres - denial on the ground that at the material time i.e. after 29.01.2004, the appellants were not selling the complete wheel assembly to Piaggio Ltd., but were putting tubes and tyres on the wheel rims on job work basis. He argued that in these circumstances, credit of the tubes and tyres cannot be availed by the respondent - Held that: - In view of the fact that the data submitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been examined in detail and the explanation given by the respondent was accepted without fully examining the said data the impugned order is not a speaking order - the matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the data and the explanation given by the respondent - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:- Appeal by revenue against dropping of demand and non-imposition of penalty on M/s. Klassic Wheels P. Ltd.- Appeal by KWL against confirmation of part of demand.Analysis:1. The revenue filed an appeal against the dropping of demand and non-imposition of penalty on M/s. Klassic Wheels P. Ltd. by the Commissioner (Appeals). The revenue contended that after a new contract dated 29.01.2004, the respondent was required to assemble rims with tubes and tyres supplied by Piaggio Ltd. on a job work basis. The revenue argued that the demand on tubes and tyres dispatched to the job worker after 01.02.2004 should not have been dropped as the appellants were not selling complete wheel assemblies but were assembling tubes and tyres on a job work basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand, stating that the tubes and tyres were used for goods on which duty was already paid. The Tribunal found that the data submitted was not thoroughly analyzed, leading to a lack of a speaking order. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-examination based on the revenue's raised issues.2. KWL, in response, explained that they were engaged in the manufacture of wheel rims and had a contract with Piaggio Ltd. Initially, they were paying full duty on the entire wheel assembly at the time of clearance to the job worker. However, after a contract change with Piaggio Ltd. from 16.02.2004, the job of fitting tubes and tyres was done on a labor charge basis. The demand for reversal of cenvat credit on tubes and tyres was raised on the basis that they were received after the new contract was enforced. KWL argued that they had paid duty on the entire wheel assembly cleared before 29.01.2004, and the actual use of tubes and tyres occurred after the rims were received by the job worker. They could correlate the receipt and consumption of tubes and tyres to the clearances of rims on which duty was paid.3. The Tribunal noted that the data submitted by the respondent had not been examined in detail by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to an incomplete analysis. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough re-examination based on the revenue's contentions. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed KWL's appeal regarding certain demands as they had not contested them before the Commissioner (Appeals) and could not reopen the matter at the Tribunal level. Ultimately, the appeal of the revenue was allowed by way of remand, while the appeal of KWL was dismissed.