2006 (1) TMI 305 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Modvat credit on inputs for manufacturing exempted goods.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. regarding duty credit reversal.
3. Applicability of Chapter X Procedure for intermediate products.
4. Justification for setting aside the duty demand and penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellants availed Modvat credit on inputs for manufacturing aluminium wires, copper wires, and PVC compounds. They cleared part of their final products to another unit for further processing under Chapter X Procedure, claiming exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The lower appellate authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 13,72,761/- on the appellants, representing the duty on inputs contained in the products cleared during May-July 1994 under the said notification.

Issue 2: The main contention revolved around whether the duty credit taken on the inputs needed to be reversed before making exempted clearances. The department argued for reversal, while the appellants claimed that the cleared goods were intermediates used in the manufacture of dutiable finished goods, thus falling within the purview of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. The Tribunal analyzed the normal rule that duty credit becomes inadmissible when inputs are used in manufacturing exempted goods but found an exception under the said notification for clearing intermediates for further manufacturing of dutiable goods.

Issue 3: The Tribunal examined the purpose behind the issuance of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., emphasizing that insisting on duty payment for intermediates would defeat the notification's objective. By allowing the exemption, no extra benefit accrued to the appellants as they would retain duty credit on inputs and avail credit on intermediates while clearing finished goods from the second unit. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.).

Issue 4: Based on the findings, the Tribunal concluded that the duty demand and penalty on the appellants were not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment was pronounced in court on 13-1-06.