2016 (6) TMI 572

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent is engaged in the manufacture of body building on the procured chassis. They received chassis from the chassis manufacturer, availed the input credit in respect of various other inputs to be used by them and cleared their final product on payment of full rate of duty of 15% on the said vehicles. There is no dispute in respect of the said vehicle. 3. Apart from the above, chassis was also supplied to them by the persons other than chassis manufacturer. After doing the job of body building of the said chassis the same were being cleared by the appellant by availing exemption in terms of exemption notification 4/97 dated 01.03.1997 and subsequent notification no. 5/98 dated 02.06.1998. As per the condition attached to the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he goods was reversed by the assessee from their Cenvat Credit account, at the time of clearance of their final product, in terms of the provisions of Rule 57CC the same would amount to reversal of credit, in which case exemption notification would be available to the assessee. Accordingly, he set aside the impugned order of the original Adjudicating Authority and allowed the assessees appeal. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue. 6. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the impugned order we find that the provisions of Rule 57CC requiring the assessee to pay 8% of the value of their final exempted product are applicable when the final product is admittedly exempted and there is no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led and the same would be available to the assessee. For the above proposition he relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Nagpur 1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC). 8. Revenue's contention is that in terms of provisions of rule 57CC, the respondent should have paid 8% on the FULL value of the motor vehicles including the value of the chassis as already observed. The core issue here is not value of the motor vehicles while reversing the amount of 8% in terms of Rule 57CC. The core issue is as to whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption or not. As rightly observed by Commissioner (A) the assessee has reversed 8% of the value (whatever value it may be) that is whether inclusive of cha....