Repair activities by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. deemed manufacturing, duty liability impacted

MARUTI UDYOG Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI-III

MARUTI UDYOG Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI-III - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 427 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Duty liability on motor vehicles cleared after repair.
3. Whether the process undertaken amounts to manufacture.
4. Eligibility for refund under Rule 173L.
5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The core issue was whether Rule 173H applied to the repair activities undertaken by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL). The Tribunal noted that Rule 173H allows excisable goods to be brought back into the factory for remaking, refining, reconditioning, or repairing without payment of duty, provided the process does not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal concluded that the process undertaken by MUL did not fit the definition of repair as it involved significant dismantling and reassembly, which amounted to manufacturing a new vehicle.

2. Duty liability on motor vehicles cleared after repair:
MUL argued that the repaired vehicles were cleared under Rule 173H without payment of excise duty, and they paid duty on body shells and reversed Modvat credit on fresh parts used in repairs. The Tribunal held that since the process amounted to manufacture, the vehicles should have been cleared on payment of duty.

3. Whether the process undertaken amounts to manufacture:
The Tribunal examined whether the activities performed by MUL constituted manufacturing. It was found that the damaged vehicles were dismantled, and good parts were salvaged and used in the assembly line to create new vehicles. The Tribunal determined that this process went beyond repair and amounted to the manufacture of new vehicles, thus attracting duty liability.

4. Eligibility for refund under Rule 173L:
MUL contended that if the process was considered manufacturing, they would be eligible for a refund of the duty paid initially under Rule 173L. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had not discussed this issue as no claim was filed under Rule 173L. MUL was given the liberty to claim the benefit of Rule 173L before the proper authority.

5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q:
The Tribunal found no basis for imposing a penalty on MUL under Rule 173Q, as the Adjudicating Authority acknowledged that MUL had regularly filed D-3 intimations and RT 12 Returns. Consequently, the penalty imposed was set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the process undertaken by MUL amounted to the manufacture of new motor vehicles, thus attracting duty liability. The penalty imposed was set aside, and the duty liability was to be recomputed by the Adjudicating Authority, considering the Modvat credit reversed and the duty paid on components manufactured and captively consumed.