Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. these are 22 appeals filed by the appellants m/s. tata engineering & locomotive co. ltd., with reference to the respective impugned orders involving the common issues and therefore they are taken together and are being disposed to by this common order.2. heard shri v. sridharan, learned advocate for the appellants and department was represented by shri. d.k. nayyar, learned jdr.3. the issue relates to modvat credit. the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chassis fitted with engine falling under heading 8706 of the central excise tariff act, 1985. the appellants are making use of various duty paid inputs in the manufacture of their final product and are availing the benefit of modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs in terms of rule 57a. show cause notices have been issued to the appellants proposing to deny the modvat credit in respect of the following items :- 4. the appellants have become unsuccessful before the commissioner (appeals) in getting the relief. not being satisfied with the findings given by the commissioner (appeals) the party has come before us by way of these appeals.5. arguing for the appellants, shri v. sridharan, learned advocate submitted that he was instructed by his clients not to press the item with reference to the items mentioned in sl. nos. 4 to 17. in view of his submission we are not giving any finding with reference to those items, 6. with reference to sl. nos. 1 to 3, he submitted that issue with reference to the above items has already been considered and concluded by the tribunal as per final order nos. a/846-49/98-nb(db), dated 18-9-1998 in the very party's case.7. countering the arguments, shri d.k. nayyar, learned jdr submitted that issue with reference to the items sl. nos. 4 to 6 is covered by the decision of the hon'ble patna high court judgment in telco v. union of india reported in 1994 (72) e.l.t. 525. he also submitted that the view taken by the hon'ble patna high court has been upheld by the supreme court as reported in 1994 (73) e.l.t. a129.8. with reference to the sl. nos. 1 to 3, he submitted that it is not clear from the impugned order whether value of the above items were included or not in determining the assessable value of the finished product. shri sridharan conceded that there is no clear finding by the authority as rightly pointed out by the dr.9. in view of the discrepancy with reference to the factual position in respect of three items, we are remanding the matter to the jurisdictional assistant commissioner to examine the issue whether value of the items have been included or not in determining the assessable value and subject to such finding following the ratio of the earlier decision of the tribunal referred to above. he may pass a suitable order after providing an opportunity to the appellants.

Judgment:
1. These are 22 appeals filed by the appellants M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., with reference to the respective impugned orders involving the common issues and therefore they are taken together and are being disposed to by this common order.

2. Heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate for the appellants and department was represented by Shri. D.K. Nayyar, learned JDR.3. The issue relates to Modvat credit. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Chassis fitted with engine falling under Heading 8706 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are making use of various duty paid inputs in the manufacture of their final product and are availing the benefit of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs in terms of Rule 57A. Show cause notices have been issued to the appellants proposing to deny the Modvat credit in respect of the following items :- 4. The appellants have become unsuccessful before the Commissioner (Appeals) in getting the relief. Not being satisfied with the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) the party has come before us by way of these appeals.

5. Arguing for the appellants, Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate submitted that he was instructed by his clients not to press the item with reference to the items mentioned in Sl. Nos. 4 to 17. In view of his submission we are not giving any finding with reference to those items, 6. With reference to Sl. Nos. 1 to 3, he submitted that issue with reference to the above items has already been considered and concluded by the Tribunal as per Final Order Nos. A/846-49/98-NB(DB), dated 18-9-1998 in the very party's case.

7. Countering the arguments, Shri D.K. Nayyar, learned JDR submitted that issue with reference to the items Sl. Nos. 4 to 6 is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court judgment in TELCO v. Union of India reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 525. He also submitted that the view taken by the Hon'ble Patna High Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. A129.

8. With reference to the Sl. Nos. 1 to 3, he submitted that it is not clear from the impugned order whether value of the above items were included or not in determining the assessable value of the finished product. Shri Sridharan conceded that there is no clear finding by the authority as rightly pointed out by the DR.9. In view of the discrepancy with reference to the factual position in respect of three items, we are remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to examine the issue whether value of the items have been included or not in determining the assessable value and subject to such finding following the ratio of the earlier decision of the Tribunal referred to above. He may pass a suitable order after providing an opportunity to the appellants.