Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Cus. on 28 July, 2000

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Cus. on 28 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 (121) ELT 827 Tri Mumbai


ORDER

J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)

1. When this application for early hearing was argued by Shri Gaitonde, JDR, Shri Godbole, Excise Manager of the appellant unit submitted that this very issue in their own case had been finally decided by the Tribunal vide order No. C.I/1380-82 /2000-WZB, dated 11-4-2000 [2000 (118) E.L.T. 635 (T)]. Hence, with the consent of both the sides, the present appeal was taken up for immediate disposal.

2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether rear view minors supplied by the appellants with two wheeler scooters are modvatable inputs or not. The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order decided against the assessees in the following manner :-

“I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellants. I find that the issue on merit has already been decided by me vide my O.I.A No. P/264/94 dated 7-7-94 which has been followed by the Asstt. Commissioner. Since the facts remaining the same, I do not intend to repeat the finding given in my earlier order. The appellants contention that rear view mirror was required to be fitted under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules is also not correct because this amendment came into effect in 1993 whereas the demand is for the earlier period when there was no such mandatory requirement. I, therefore, find nothing wrong in the order holding that the appellants will not be entitled to Mod vat credit on rear view mirrors and they will have to pay duty on the same under Rule 57F(l)(ii) procedure”.

3. In the cited order, the Tribunal held that mirrors were inputs and credit was available of the duty paid on them.

4. Since the cited judgment covers the issue in its entirety, we adopt the ratio thereof.

5. As regards the finding of the Commissioner that the legal requirement of fitment of such mirrors by the relevant Regulations were not there during the relevant period, we find that the legal requirement is not a very relevant issue in assessing the reality whether a particular article was fitted to a particular final goods.

6. Following the cited judgment of the Tribunal, this appeal is allowed. Consequential relief is directed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *