2009 (4) TMI 525 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the credit of duty attributable to the inputs, after the introduction of Section 3A can be recovered under Rule 57(I) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 or not Held that - assessee had come under the Compound Levy Scheme with effect from 1-8-1997 and when they switched over to this, the credit lying unutilised, be in the inputs or in the final products, lapsed in terms of sub-rule (17) of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Modvat Credit Rules vis-a-vis Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944
Recovery of credit of duty attributable to inputs after the introduction of Section 3A under Rule 57(I) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing non-alloy steel, had a stock of inputs and steel ingots in finished products as of 1-8-1997. Following the introduction of Section 3A of the Central Excise Tariff Act, duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme was required. Notification No. 33 of 1997 stipulated that Modvat credit available as of 1st August 1997 shall lapse and not be utilized for duty payment. A show cause notice was issued in 2000 to recover Modvat credit taken on inputs. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals.

The appellate authority, referring to a previous case, concluded that since the appellants had not opted for duty exemption and were under the Compounded Levy Scheme, the Modvat credit should not be recovered. The Department then appealed to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Department raised substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of Modvat Credit Rules with Section 3A and the recovery of duty credit post introduction of Section 3A under Rule 57(I) of the Central Excise Rules 1944.

Rule 57F(17)(c) stated that Modvat credit for manufacturers under Section 3A shall lapse and not be used for duty payment. Rule 57H(7) mentioned the requirement for manufacturers opting for duty exemption to pay an amount equivalent to the credit allowed on inputs or finished goods. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had switched to the Compounded Levy Scheme in 1997, causing the unutilized credit to lapse as per Rule 57F(17). The Tribunal's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal as the substantial legal questions raised were deemed irrelevant. The appellants' case fell under the Compounded Levy Scheme, and the objections raised by the Department were not accepted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.