AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 are that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of dump trucks classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8704 1010 and that they were also availing CENVAT Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. 2.1 During the period under dispute, it appears that the department undertook verification of the records of the assessee-taxpayer and they appear to have noticed that the assessee had imported one Dump Truck Model No.HD785-7, claimed to be in the SKD condition on which they had availed CENVAT credit; the dump truck was claimed to be subsequently assembled and cleared on payment of duty. It is thus the case of the department that in terms of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 when inputs or capital goods on which CE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., ld. Advocate, for the Assessee-Appellant and Sri Harendra Singh Pal, ld. Assistant Commissioner, for the Revenue. 3.2 I have carefully perused both the orders of lower authorities and also considered the documents / judicial pronouncements relied upon during the course of arguments. 3.3 Upon consideration, I find that the only issue that crops up for my consideration is, "whether the Department was justified in not accepting the claim of 'Manufacturing' activity of the Appellant/importer insofar as the dump truck in question is concerned?" 4. It is the case of the First Appellate authority, as could be seen from the impugned order, that the import price of the consignment with BCD exclusive of CVD, cess and SAD was Rs.2,44,00,00,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w by the First Appellate Authority has no precedential value. She would further submit that at the time of import, the dump truck was incomplete and unassembled or disassembled, in SKD condition, the same was assembled/converted into a fully finished dump truck which was cleared upon payment of duty. Hence, Rule 2(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation [GRI for short] r/w Note 6 of Section XVII of the CETA, 1985 [Note 6 for short] when applied, the activity of the appellant would fall within the scope of 'manufacture' and therefore, the findings of the lower authorities and the consequent demand cannot be sustained. 5. In the light of the rival contentions, it is of utmost relevance to verify the case of the importer in the context of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... commissioner insofar as the price difference is concerned, but however, I am of the view that the same alone may not be a reason for disregarding the very activity of manufacture since any such difference may invite a different action if the same amounts to infraction of any provision/s of the statute. But, in any case, the factum of 'assembly' is required to be established, which is the primary condition. 7. In the Show Cause Notice dated 13.01.2012 the relevant observation leading to the issuance of Show Cause Notice, as at para 2, reads as under: "2. On verification of records, it was noticed that the assessee had imported one dump truck Model No. HD785-7 in SKD condition vide Bill of Entry No. 402684 dated 21.2.2007 and ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....finished Dump Truck amounted to manufacture....'. 8.3 I have also perused the invoice copy which is placed at page 42 of the appeal memo which only reflect '1 UNT of Komatsu Dump Truck Model HD785-7 (KIPL PCD 06-011)' and from this, it is not possible to ascertain if the article was in SKD condition as claimed or CKD condition. Moreover, if it is be accepted as in SKD condition and that the importer did the assembling job, then it was for him to at least place on record, when specifically asked by the authority in the SCN, the activity that it performed to claim as a complete article. No effort apparently was done, nor do I find any attempt being made, at least before me to explain the process undertook by the importer after importing th....