TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant has manufactured tools/dyes for manufacture of motor vehicle parts for M/s. Force Motors Ltd. . On receipt of certain amounts for tools/dyes as well as for manufacture of motor vehicle parts, it was observed that the said motor vehicle parts have been cleared to M/s. Force Motors Ltd. without payment of Central Excise duty on the tools/dyes which were manufactured by the appellant for manufacturing the aforesaid motor vehicle tools. It was observed that the appellant has claimed exemption on Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. Hence, vide the Show cause Notice No. 531 dated 27.8.2019 Central Excise duty of Rs. 98,500/- on amount Rs. 7,88,000/- as the value of manufactured tools/dyes which were a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or vehicles parts manufactured by the appellant and the certificate of Technical Engineer was duly placed on record. 3. Since the tools/dyes were manufactured by the appellant and were kept by them for further use, the appellant was exempted from paying the excise duty on the same by virtue of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. 3.1 The learned Counsel has submitted that findings of the Adjudicating Authority below, that too, for lack of evidence are absolutely wrong. It is submitted that the findings for non compliance of section 35 F of Central Excise Act, 1944 are also wrong as the appellant has already made a deposit. The order is accordingly, prayed to be set aside. 3.2 Learned Counsel has relied upon the followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Adjudicating Authority below on the decision of Tribunal Chennai in the case of JBM Auto Ltd. vs CCE, Delhi IV reported as [2017 (357) ELT 1107(Tri-Chan)] is absolutely applicable to the given facts and circumstances and based thereupon the demand has rightly been confirmed, that the appeal in hand is therefore prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record, it is observed and held as follows:- Following are the admitted facts in the present case : 1) The appellant manufactured motor vehicle parts for M/s. Force Motors Ltd. 2) tools/dyes for manufacturing the same were also manufactured by the appellant 3) while clearing the said manufactured motor vehicles parts to M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsumed within the factory of production. The Notification talks about two conditions to be complied with to seek the benefit thereof, viz- 1. The goods should have been manufactured by the assessee; 2. Those should have been used by the assessee /manufacturer. In the present case, the above admissions clarify the tools/dyes were manufactured by the appellant for manufacture of motor vehicle parts ordered /purchased by M/s. Force Motors Ltd. Admittedly, these tools/dyes were kept by the appellant for being consumed by the appellant for further production of the said motor vehicle parts. Hence, the conditions have admittedly been complied with. Hence I am of the opinion that the benefit of this Notification is available t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of M/s. Force Motors Ltd. and then back from M/s. Force Motors Ltd.'s factory to the appellant's factory. There is no denial to the fact the goods retained were used for further manufacture. This observation is sufficient to hold that the tools/dyes were kept with the appellant for the purpose of manufacturing motor vehicle parts in future also though only for M/s. Force Motors Ltd. 10. Further, I observe that the appellant has challenged the findings on the ground that the cost received by the appellant towards the manufacture of tools/dyes has been amortized by the appellant and for the said reason also appellant is not liable to discharge any duty of excise thereupon. It is observed that the Adjudicating Authority below has not consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this also is not the fact of the present case. That in the purchase order, the amount of cost of tools/dyes (moulds manufactured by the appellant) included in the cost of tools manufactured by the appellant out of said moulds but the tax invoices are revealing appropriate amortization of the cost of said moulds. In the light of said invoices even specific certificate from the Chartered Engineer was not required, specifically when there is no evidence produced by the department to falsify the value and falsify the fact of amortization of the cost of tools/dyes by the appellant. Rejecting the appeal for want of evidence is therefore, not justified. 11. This issue has earlier been decided by various Benches of this Tribunal as is apparent f....