2007 (10) TMI 23 - HC - Central Excise

Common inputs in manufacturing dutiable and non-dutiable goods As per Rule 57C(2) and 57C(3) if inputs are intended to be used as fuel credit is admissible even if separate accounts are not maintained

Summary

Issues:
Whether credit of duty is admissible to the inputs used in both dutiable and exempted goods without maintaining a separate account or reversing 8% duty in respect of clearances of exempted goods?

Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute regarding the admissibility of duty credit on inputs used in both dutiable and exempted goods by a manufacturing company. The respondent-assessee, engaged in manufacturing Pressure Die Cast Components, availed Modvat credit on inputs used in production. The issue arose when it was found that furnace oil, used in both dutiable and non-dutiable products, was not accounted for properly, leading to demands for Central Excise duty and penalties.

2. The respondent-assessee challenged the orders before the Commissioner (Appeals), who directed for a pre-deposit for admission of appeals. Failure to comply led to dismissal of the appeals. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay application, set aside the earlier order, and remanded the matter for deciding on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) then allowed the appeals based on Tribunal judgments.

3. The appellant-revenue filed a further appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. The Tribunal cited a previous decision and emphasized that denying Modvat credit for furnace oil used as fuel, due to manufacturing goods on job work basis, was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the decision, leading to the current appeal.

4. The High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of Rule 57C and Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules. It noted that while sub-rule (2) of Rule 57C exempts inputs intended to be used as fuel from certain provisions, manufacturers dealing with both dutiable and non-dutiable products must comply with sub-rule (9) of Rule 57CC, requiring separate inventory and accounts for such inputs. In this case, where furnace oil was used solely as fuel, the respondent-assessee was entitled to Modvat Credit.

5. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was correct as the provisions of Rule 57C and Rule 57CC did not apply to inputs intended as fuel. Given the factual findings, the respondent-assessee was rightfully granted Modvat Credit. The question of law was decided against the appellant-revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in favor of the respondent-assessee.