MARUTI UDYOG LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the CETA Schedule. Their inputs include tyres and tubes which are supplied by manufacturers like M/s. MRF Ltd. Tyres and tubes falling under Chapter 40 of the CETA Schedule, used in the manufacture of motor vehicles, were exempted, under Notification No. 6/2000 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2000, from payment of special excise duty subject to the condition that, if the use of such tyres and tubes was in a place other than the factory of production, the procedure under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was followed. In order to obtain tyres and tubes duty -free from their suppliers, the appellants on 3 -3 -2000 applied to the proper officer of Central Excise for the requisite CT -2 Certificate under the Chapter X procedure. The CT -2 Certificate was issued by the department only on 9 -3 -2000. Upon receipt of the said Certificate, the appellants started obtaining tyres and tubes without payment of special excise duty from M/s. MRF Ltd. But, during the interregnum (4 -3 -2000 to 9 -3 -2000), the appellants had received tyres and tubes from M/s. MRF Ltd. on payment of duties of excise including Special Excise Duty of Rs. 8,66,378/ - and had used the same for manufacturing motor vehicles. Later on, they filed a refund claim for the amount of Rs. 8,66,378/ -. The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the claim. The appeal preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the Dy. Commissioner was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) Heard both sides.

(3.) Ld. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the CT -2 Certificate issued by the proper officer of Central Excise on 9 -3 -2000 was operative from 3 -3 -2000 (the date of application for the Certificate) and, therefore, the procedure envisaged under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 stood complied with in respect of the above period and the tyres and tubes received by the appellants during the said period were exempt from payment of Special Excise Duty. On this premise, ld. Counsel has further argued that the Tribunal's decision in A.S. Impex Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2001 (127) E.L.T. 442 (Tri. - Del.)], relied on by the lower appellate authority, is not applicable to this case. Counsel has pointed out that, in the appellants' own case involving similar facts, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur has granted the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 -C.E. for the period prior to 9 -3 -2000 (date of issue of CT -2 Certificate). Counsel has placed on record a copy of the relevant Order -in -Appeal No. 483/2003, dated 28 -10 -2003. Ld. Counsel has also relied on the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. TISCO [1988 (36) E.L.T. 320 (Tribunal)]. Reliance has also been placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in CCE v. M.P.V. and Engg. Industries [2003 (153) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.)].