2009 (2) TMI 844 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of Tribunal's decision to vacate the demand.
2. Liability of the party to pay an amount equivalent to 8% of the price of exempted goods.

Summary:

Issue 1: Justification of Tribunal's Decision to Vacate the Demand
The Tribunal vacated the demand on the ground that the party was availing Modvat credit on inputs, specifically Residual Furnace Oil (RFO), used for generating steam for manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods without maintaining separate accounts as required by Rule 57CC(9) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal relied on the proviso to Rule 57A, which allows credit for inputs used for generating electricity or steam within the factory, irrespective of whether the final products are dutiable or exempt. This interpretation was supported by the case of Navsari Oil Products Ltd. v. CCE Surat, where it was held that inputs used for generating steam or electricity within the factory are eligible for credit.

Issue 2: Liability to Pay 8% of the Price of Exempted Goods
The revenue argued that the party was liable to pay an amount equivalent to 8% of the price of exempted goods as per Rule 57AD(2) of the Excise Rules, due to the lack of separate accounts for inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. However, the Tribunal and the High Court found that Rule 57CC explicitly excludes inputs used as fuel from this requirement. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that RFO used for generating steam falls under the category of inputs used as fuel, thus exempting it from the provisions of Rule 57CC. This interpretation was consistent with the judgments in CCE v. Super Auto (I) Ltd., CCE v. Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemical Ltd., and CCE v. Solaris Chemtech Ltd., which confirmed that inputs used as fuel for generating steam or electricity within the factory are eligible for Modvat credit.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue, affirming that the Tribunal was justified in vacating the demand and that the party was not liable to pay the amount equivalent to 8% of the price of exempted goods. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant rules and supported by precedents from higher courts.