2005 (7) TMI 445 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notifications regarding Modvat Scheme

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Notifications related to the Modvat Scheme. The appellant argued that Notification No. 5/94-CE (NT) and Notification 58/97-CE cover different aspects of the Modvat Scheme and are issued under distinct provisions. The appellant contended that the restriction imposed by Notification No. 14/98-CE (NT) on credit does not apply to Notification No. 58/97-CE, entitling them to a credit rate of 12% of the invoice price. On the other hand, the respondent supported the impugned order.

The judgment delves into the specifics of the Notifications and the relevant legal framework. It highlights the insertion of sub-rule (6) under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, allowing deemed credit on specific inputs under the compounded levy Scheme. The Court emphasized that the restriction imposed by Notification No. 14/98-CE does not extend to Notification No. 58/97-CE, which provides for deemed credit at a rate of 12% for certain inputs. The Court noted that hot rolled non-alloy steel products fall under the purview of Notification No. 58/97-CE and are not covered by Notification No. 5/94-CE, reinforcing the appellant's entitlement to Modvat credit at the rate of 12%.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment clarifies the applicability of different Notifications under the Modvat Scheme and upholds the appellant's right to avail of Modvat credit at the prescribed rate.