2007 (5) TMI 449 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Modvat credit for motor vehicles.
2. Violation of CBEC Circular No. 27/90-CX.
3. Demand of irregularly availed credit.
4. Tribunal's decision on Modvat credit entitlement.
5. Remand of the matter to the Commissioner.
6. Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's decision.
7. Commissioner's compliance with the remand order.
8. High Court's pending decision on the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the respondent availing Modvat credit for motor vehicles manufactured and cleared by them. The revenue alleged a violation of CBEC Circular No. 27/90-CX, stating that the respondent used the credit for LCVs exported to pay duty on cars. A show cause notice was issued for payment of Rs. 38 crores for irregularly availed credit, with the adjudicating authority confirming a demand of Rs. 23 crores. However, the Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to Modvat credit for inputs related to exported LCVs, setting aside the demand of Rs. 18 crores based on this ground.

2. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner to determine the correct duty liability, considering the opening balance as of May 1, 1994. Subsequently, the Commissioner issued the impugned order. Meanwhile, the revenue appealed to the High Court on a legal question regarding the Tribunal's decision, which is still pending. The revenue contended that the Commissioner should have kept the matter pending due to the Tribunal's decision not being finalized.

3. The Tribunal disagreed with the revenue's contention, stating that the adjudicating authority complied with the remand order in the true spirit of judicial discipline. It was deemed inappropriate to criticize the authority for following the Tribunal's decision, which was neither stayed nor set aside by the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed it.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's entitlement to Modvat credit, remanded the matter to the Commissioner for determining duty liability, and rejected the revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline and compliance with orders. The case highlights the significance of following legal procedures and respecting judicial decisions until they are stayed or set aside.