2001 (11) TMI 874 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding removal of goods between units for Modvat credit.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 57F(1)(ii)
The case involved a dispute regarding the removal of goods between two units of the same entity for availing Modvat credit under Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants had two units, and they were transferring inputs from one unit to another, claiming Modvat credit based on the duty paid at the original unit. The Central Excise authorities at the receiving unit objected to this procedure, initiating proceedings against the party. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise initially dropped the case, stating that as long as certificates were issued by the proper authority for the movement of goods and accompanied the inputs, Modvat credit could not be denied. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, emphasizing that goods should be removed only on a gate pass issued under Rule 52A after payment of duty. The lower appellate authority upheld the department's view, leading to the current appeal.

Issue 2: Applicability of Government Instructions
The appellant's counsel argued that government instructions, including Notfn. No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.) and Trade Notice No. 57/87, allowed the use of subsidiary gate passes and certificates for availing Modvat credit. The Revenue representative reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals)' findings, emphasizing the necessity of removal under a gate pass issued after duty payment.

Judgment:
The Judge considered the submissions and found that the goods on which Modvat credit was claimed had been removed from the original unit after payment of duty or reversal of credit, with certificates issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Banmore unit availed Modvat credit based on these certificates. The Judge disagreed with the lower appellate authority's interpretation of Rule 57F(1)(ii), stating that there was no explicit requirement for removal only under a GP1. Since government instructions allowed Modvat credit based on certificates and subsidiary gate passes, the department could not take a view contrary to these directives. Accordingly, the Judge upheld the Asst. Collector's decision, allowing the appeal and granting the appellant consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Rule 57F(1)(ii) and underscores the importance of following government instructions for availing Modvat credit on goods transferred between units.