MARUTI UDYOG LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., is regarding the duty chargeable on the inputs cleared as such.

(2.) Shri Ravi Raghvan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture motor vehicle and avail of CENVAT Credit on the duty paid on inputs; that in the case of shortage of parts in their spare parts division which is situated outside the factory premises, the parts obtained for the manufacturing division are transferred to the spare parts division that differential demand has been confirmed against them besides imposing penalty on the ground that the duty of excise is payable on the selling price of the spare parts division. The learned Advocate further submitted that the demand of duty is for the period from 20 -1 -2001 to 31 -5 -2001; that during the relevant period the inputs were cleared to spare parts division (SPD) on reversal of CENVAT Credit in terms of provisions of Rule 57AB; that w.e.f. 1 -3 -2001 in view of the amendment carried out to Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 they were liable to discharge duty on the basis of value determined under Section 4; that on noticing the omission they voluntarily paid the differential duty amounting to Rs. 15,46,826/ - and intimated to the department on 25 -6 -2001. Further, they have not paid any differential duty in respect of clearances effected during the period from 20 -1 -2001 to 28 -2 -2001 in view of the provisions of Rule 57AB read with the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd., 2000 (120) E.L.T. 228; that the Commissioner has confirmed the demand on the ground that the amendment carried out in Rule 57AB w.e.f. 1 -3 -2001 is retrospective which is erroneous inasmuch as it was clearly indicated in notification No. 6/2001 -CE. (N.T.) by which Rule 57AB was amended that the amendment would be effective from 1 -3 -2001. Finally, he submitted that no penalty is imposable on them as they had deposited the entire amount of differential duty payable by them before issue of show cause notice on 18 -7 -2001. He relied upon the decision in the case of Arun Presstressed Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 2002 (150) E.L.T. 542 (T) = 2002 (51) RLT 949 (CEGAT) wherein the penalty was set aside in view of the fact that duty had been paid before issue of show cause notice and the same was appropriated in the order. Reliance has also been placed on the following cases : -

(3.) Countering the arguments Smt. Krishna A. Mishra, learned SDR, submitted that the provisions of Rule 57AB were not similar to the provisions of Rule 57F which were interpreted by the Larger Bench in the case of Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. She, further, submitted that in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Z.V. Nagarkar v. U.O.I.- 1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 penalty is imposable as the Appellants themselves admitted their liability to pay the differential duty of excise w.e.f. 1 -3 -2001.