2007 (4) TMI 67 - AT - Central Excise

Cenavt/Modvat - Revenue contended that respondent was trading in modvatable inputs by merely slitting them sell in the market and paid less duty on the clearance of slit strips and accordingly demand were made alongwith penalty - Held that revenue contention was not correct and set aside demand and penalty

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to orders setting aside demands of excess credits
- Interpretation of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
- Classification of goods as final product or scrap

Analysis:
1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a challenge by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside demands for excess credits in two cases. The demands pertained to the excess credits of Rs. 2,38,894/- and Rs. 7,17,812/- confirmed against the respondent under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalties of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- were also imposed on the respondent in the respective cases.

2. The Revenue contended that the respondent, engaged in manufacturing steel tubes, was availing modvat credit facility for inputs used within the factory. It was alleged that the respondent was trading in modvatable inputs by simply slitting and selling them without paying the requisite duty. The adjudicating authority held that the removal of slits fell under Rule 57F(3) of the Rules, requiring duty equivalent to that paid on inputs to be paid upon clearance of products. Consequently, the demands were confirmed, and penalties were imposed.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the process of manufacturing steel tubes, noting that steel strips/sheets/skelps were uncoiled, slit, and cut to the required width in the intermediate process. The Commissioner found that only the slits deemed unusable or defective were removed as strips, which were separately classified as the final product. It was established that the entire input was used in the manufacturing process, and the unusable/defective slits did not remain as inputs "as such." Referring to a similar issue in a previous case, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the respondent had not cleared the goods "as such." Therefore, the appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the classification of goods and the interpretation of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The judgment clarified the distinction between final products and unusable/defective materials, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.