2003 (10) TMI 508 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 on imported sugar clearance.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57AB(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules.
3. Comparison of judgments in CCE, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. and Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the demand of Additional Duties of Excise (AED) and cess on the clearance of imported sugar by M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. The appellant paid only the basic excise duty at the time of clearance, equivalent to the Cenvat credit taken at the receipt of the inputs. The show cause notice demanded further amounts based on the interpretation of relevant rules.

2. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Rule 57AB(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the demand for AED and cess, which was confirmed by the Commissioner in the Order-in-Appeal. The appellant argued that their case aligned with the judgment in CCE, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd., citing similarities in provisions but faced a different interpretation by the Commissioner.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the judgments in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi and CCE, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. to resolve the issue. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's distinction between the rules, finding alignment with the interpretation in Maruti Udyog Ltd. case. Following the precedent set by the Larger Bench's decision in Asia Brown Boveri Ltd., the Tribunal held that the appellant's appeal was justified, and the lower authorities' orders were unsustainable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as permissible under the law, based on the interpretation of the rules and the application of relevant judgments to the case at hand.