2008 (2) TMI 793 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal concerns the utilization of Additional Excise Duty (Textile & Textile Articles) credit for payment of Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) Act on the final product. The key issues are the permissibility of cross-utilization under Modvat/Cenvat Rules and the time bar for the demand.

Utilization of AED(T&TA) for AED(GSI) Payment:
The appeal centered on whether the credit of Additional Excise Duty (Textile & Textile Articles) could be used for paying the Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) Act on the final product. The appellant argued that prior to March 31, 2000, cross-utilization was permissible under Rule 57F(12) and cited precedent to support this claim. They contended that from April 1, 2000, to June 31, 2001, utilization was allowed under Rule 57AB(2)(b) and subsequent rules. The appellant asserted that the demand for the period from December 1998 to June 2001 was not sustainable due to the permissibility of cross-utilization under Modvat/Cenvat Rules and supported judgments. Additionally, they argued that the demand was time-barred up to July 2000 as there was no suppression of facts.

Commissioner's Interpretation and Tribunal Decision:
The Commissioner interpreted Modvat rules to disallow cross-utilization, citing a Board's Circular. However, the Tribunal, in a previous case, clarified that the word "said" in Rule 57AB did not restrict cross-utilization. The Tribunal emphasized that the plain meaning of the statute should be applied, and the Board's clarification could not aid in interpreting the rule. Relying on the Tribunal's previous decision, the Bench set aside the impugned order and allowed all the appeals, providing relief to the appellants.

This judgment highlights the importance of interpreting rules based on their plain meaning and established legal precedents, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeals in favor of the appellants.