2004 (3) TMI 618 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:

1. Interpretation of Circular No. 20/89 in relation to Notification No. 177/86 and its applicability to Notification No. 5/94.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Circular No. 20/89 in the context of Notification No. 177/86 and its relevance to Notification No. 5/94. The Tribunal had previously addressed a similar issue in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Modern Petrofils Ltd. where it held that credit of basic excise duty could be used for paying additional duties of excise. The learned DR argued that Circular No. 20/89 was specific to Notification No. 177/86 and could not be applied to Notification No. 5/94, citing the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kalyani Packaging Industries v Union of India.

In its analysis, the Tribunal referred to Circular No. 20/89 and highlighted that it allowed the utilization of credit claimed on specified duties for the payment of any one of the specified duties. The Tribunal emphasized that the circular was intended for general application and not limited to a specific case. Drawing a distinction from the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal upheld its previous ruling in CCE, Vadodara v. Modern Petrofils Ltd., affirming that the credit of specified duties could indeed be utilized for the payment of other specified duties. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it.

This judgment underscores the importance of interpreting circulars in a broader context and applying them for general benefit rather than restricting their scope to specific instances. It establishes a precedent regarding the utilization of credits for specified duties, providing clarity on the permissible use of such credits in excise duty payments.