2007 (9) TMI 73 - AT - Customs

Cenvat/Modvat Alleged that appellant is not entitle for Modvat credit of CVD paid at the time of re-import on the technical ground that separate records were not being maintained by appellant but appellant denied the allegation Allowed decision in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing Modvat credit vs. small scale exemption post-1-4-2004
2. Dispute over Modvat credit for CVD on re-imported goods
3. Maintenance of separate records for Modvat credit eligibility

Issue 1: Availing Modvat credit vs. small scale exemption post-1-4-2004
The appellant transitioned from availing Modvat credit to opting for small scale exemption post-1-4-2004. This shift in benefit utilization is crucial in determining the appellant's tax liabilities and entitlements under the relevant notifications.

Issue 2: Dispute over Modvat credit for CVD on re-imported goods
The dispute revolves around the Modvat credit of CVD paid by the appellant upon re-import of goods. The appellant argues that despite not being entitled to credit for goods cleared for home consumption, they should receive credit for the CVD paid during re-import since the goods were intended for further processing and export.

Issue 3: Maintenance of separate records for Modvat credit eligibility
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's Modvat credit claim due to the lack of separate record maintenance. The appellant contended that they followed correct procedures, including separate accounting and storage of re-imported goods, as evidenced by various notifications and declarations. The appellant argued that the procedures complied with Board Circular No. 323/39/97-CX, allowing simultaneous exemption for home consumption goods and Modvat credit for export production.

The appellate authority's rejection of the Modvat credit claim was based on technical grounds of record-keeping, rather than disputing the entitlement itself. The appellant's adherence to procedures, such as separate accounting and declarations, aimed to fulfill the requirements of maintaining distinct records for Modvat credit eligibility. The appellant's argument that the statutory register was non-operative for home consumption goods due to exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 was crucial in establishing compliance with the notification and circular guidelines.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining separate records for Modvat credit eligibility, even when transitioning between benefit schemes. The appellant's meticulous procedures and compliance with circulars supported their entitlement to the Modvat credit, leading to the appeal's success and consequential relief being granted.