AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms of Rule 6 (3b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As per Notification, the DMRC has provided the required Central Excise Duty Exemption Certificate certifying that the goods are parts of the inventory maintained by DMRC and shall finally be owned by DMRC. The said certificate has been obtained by DMRC on 14.06.2007. Later on, the Revenue entertained a view that the buses have been procured by DMRC in connection with Metro Link Service in which the buses will be handed over to private operators on operate and transfer basis on the value of buses. According to the Revenue such transaction would signify that the buses have neither been procured by DMRC nor will be owned by DMRC. Therefore, M/s. Tata has failed to fulfil the condition No.18 under exemption Notification No.6/2006-CE dt.1.3.2006. Consequently, show cause notice was issued on 18.7.2008 to demand duty on 120 bus chassis cleared to DMRC and to impose penalties on all the appellants. The matter was adjudicated, the demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and penalties were imposed on all the appellants. Against the said orders, the appellants are before us. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Tata submits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned orders to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Ld.AR supported the impugned orders and submits that the chassis which has been purchased by DMRC from M/s.Tata were not equipment or machinery or rolling stock. These buses are not being used for Delhi MRS Project and ownership of these will be transferred by it to the operators of the buses after five years as per agreement. Therefore, DMRC has issued wrong certificate for the purpose of availing of above notification. 7. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 8. We have gone through the Notification No.6/2006-CE dt.1.3.2006. The condition No.18 is relevant in relation to the use in hand which is extracted below:- "18. If, before the clearance of the goods, the manufacturer produces to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, a certificate from the Chairman or the Managing Director or the Director (Rolling Stock, Electrical and Signaling) or the Director (Finance) of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., to the effect that - (i) the goods are procured by or on behalf of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. for use in the De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rising Section XVI." 11. Further this Tribunal has observed as under:- "11. As noted earlier, the term "machine" has not been defined in the schedule save for the purpose of Section XVI. We have, therefore, to look at the ordinary sense of the term. The "McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms" (Second Edition) defines "machines" inter alia as follows:- "[Mech. Engg.] A combination of rigid or resistant bodies having define motions and capable of performing useful work." 12. New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, Deluxe Encyclopaedic Edition, defines "Machines" thus: "Machine: An apparatus, consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, and used in the performance of some kind of work; a mechanical apparatus or contrivance; something operated by a mechanical apparatus, as an automobile or a bicycle....." 14. Having regard to all these considerations, we do not see why a motor vehicle cannot be held to be a machine for the purpose of the Schedule. In fact, the very note (1) (k) to Section XVI is a clear pointer to this conclusion. It says that that Section does not cover vehicles, aircrafts, ships or boats of Section XVII. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the DMRC cannot be sustained. We find no justification for imposing equal amount of penalty on the main appellant in terms of Section 11 AC. The main appellant produced a certificate given by DMRC and claimed the exemption. DMRC gave such certificate based on their understanding of the claim for exemption. No fraudulent intent could be brought out in these transactions. DMRC is a Government Promoted Utility Organization and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no justification in the imposition of equal penalty on the appellant and personal penalty on the Director of DMRC. Accordingly, we set aside the penalties imposed on them." 13. Further, we observe that in the case of Toyo Engineering India Ltd (supra),Hon'ble Supreme Court. Has observed as under:- 12. It is not disputed that construction equipments imported by the respondent were used in the initial setting up of the plant. The Assistant Collector and the appellate authority denied the facility of the project import as the ownership of the imported goods would not pass to the project authority and that the machinery imported could be utilized elsewhere in the setting up of any other plant. What....