2008 (3) TMI 590 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Filing of defective appeal without submitting a copy of the order-in-original.
2. Admissibility of credit on inputs for manufacture of exempted goods.
3. Interpretation of Rule 57CC and Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of a defective appeal filed without submitting a copy of the order-in-original. The consultant for the appellant argued that the order-in-appeal itself contains the necessary information, but the Tribunal found this reasoning inadequate. It was emphasized that every order-in-appeal refers to the order-in-original, which is crucial for understanding the case. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the appeal as defective and deserving of dismissal solely on this ground.

2. The second issue pertains to the admissibility of credit on inputs for manufacturing exempted goods. The consultant for the appellant claimed that credit on inputs was taken for manufacturing exempted goods. However, the Tribunal pointed out that under the law, if the finished goods are exempted, the credit of duty on inputs is not permissible. The lower appellate authority upheld the demand of 8% of the value of the finished goods, citing the retrospective amendments to Rule 57CC and Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the Finance Act, 2005. The Tribunal concurred with the lower appellate authority's decision, stating that the order was legal and proper, and there was no justification for interference.

3. The final issue involves the interpretation of Rule 57CC and Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal highlighted that the retrospective amendments made by the Finance Act, 2005, had a significant impact on the case. It was noted that the amendments provided a recovery provision, which invalidated the appellant's argument that there was no such provision. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, dismissing the appeal on both procedural and substantive grounds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal due to procedural deficiencies in filing a defective appeal and on the merits concerning the admissibility of credit on inputs for manufacturing exempted goods, as well as the interpretation of relevant excise rules.