2003 (9) TMI 621 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of credit on duty paid for single yarn used in manufacturing doubled yarn.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner.
3. Appeal against the denial of credit and penalty reduction by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 1: Denial of credit on duty paid for single yarn used in manufacturing doubled yarn:
The appellant received doubled yarn from its manufacturer, which was exempted from duty. The appellant claimed credit for the duty paid on the single yarn used to manufacture the doubled yarn. The Deputy Commissioner objected to this claim, leading to the denial of credit and imposition of a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of credit but reduced the penalty. The appellant contended that doubled yarn is an intermediate product, invoking Rule 57D(2) to argue against the denial of credit. However, the tribunal disagreed, stating that Rule 57D(2) applies when intermediate goods are produced during the manufacture of the final product. As the appellant's final product was narrow woven fabrics, the credit for duty paid on single yarn could not be allowed since doubled yarn was considered an intermediate product. Despite some doubt in the matter, the tribunal found no justification for the penalty and set it aside.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty on the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner:
The Deputy Commissioner imposed a penalty on the appellant for claiming credit on duty paid for single yarn used in manufacturing doubled yarn. However, the tribunal, after considering the nature of the products involved and the applicability of Rule 57D(2), found that the penalty was not justified. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner.

Issue 3: Appeal against the denial of credit and penalty reduction by the Commissioner (Appeals):
The appellant appealed against the denial of credit and the penalty reduction by the Commissioner (Appeals). While the denial of credit was upheld due to the nature of the products involved and the application of Rule 57D(2), the tribunal found that the penalty imposed was not justified. As a result, the tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the penalty but maintaining the denial of credit for duty paid on single yarn used in manufacturing doubled yarn.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of denial of credit on duty paid for single yarn used in manufacturing doubled yarn, imposition of penalty by the Deputy Commissioner, and the appeal against the denial of credit and penalty reduction by the Commissioner (Appeals), providing a detailed account of the tribunal's decision and reasoning.