2007 (6) TMI 52 - AT - Customs

Cenvat/Modvat - Department contended that appellant is not entitle for credit on the reprocessed and re-exported goods and accordingly demand for refund claim - Held that department contention was not correct and allowed the credit to appellant

Summary

Issues: Denial of Modvat credit on re-exported goods after reprocessing.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai dealt with the issue of denial of Modvat credit on goods that were re-exported after reprocessing. The appellant had exported dye intermediates to a purchaser in Spain, but the consignment was refused due to delayed export. The goods were then brought back to the factory, reprocessed, and re-exported after payment of duty. The appellant sought to avail credit by writing to the authorities, but there was no response. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant should have filed a refund claim instead of taking credit suo motu. However, the tribunal analyzed Rule 173M of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which does not explicitly mention claiming a refund in such cases. The tribunal referred to previous judgments, including CCE v. Tin Manufacturing Company, Kare Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, and Alcobex Metals Ltd. v. CCE, which clarified that in similar circumstances, the appellant is entitled to avail the credit. The tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in denying the Modvat credit and allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant rightfully took the credit.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the entitlement of the appellant to claim Modvat credit on goods re-exported after reprocessing, despite the lack of a specific provision in Rule 173M. The tribunal relied on previous decisions to support the appellant's right to avail the credit, overturning the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowing the appeal.