2019 (7) TMI 785 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - use of intermediate goods (Neutral Filter Cake) as inputs - Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - HELD THAT - The finding of fact that the input used is only minimal is not controverted. At this stage, when we are hearing the appeal on a substantial question of law, we are not minded to reopen that finding of fact, no matter how compelling may be the argument of Mr. Maity. It is also beyond controversy that the said input has been treated as a separate final product and the duty thereon has been paid adjusting the duty paid as input. The learned tribunal has taken a very realistic and plausible view of the matter. We affirm the said impugned order of the tribunal dated 23rd March, 2007, answer all the questions framed by the Court in favour of the respondent assessee and against the revenue and dismiss the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding duty payment for final products exempt from duty but utilizing inputs on which duty was paid.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondent was engaged in producing both dutiable and duty-exempt products. The appellant argued that the respondent did not comply with sub-rule (9) of Rule 57CC by not maintaining separate inventory and accounts for inputs used in duty-exempt products. However, the court noted that the inputs used in the final products were minimal, around 1% by weight, and duty had been paid on these inputs. The court emphasized that the law requires payment of 8% duty on the whole product if the final product is wholly or substantially made from a particular input exempt from duty but on which duty was paid. In this case, since the inputs were minimal and treated as separate final products with duty paid, the court found no wrongful availing of duty credit by the respondent.

The court highlighted that the factual position of minimal input usage was undisputed and that the duty on the said input had been paid and accounted for separately. The court refused to reopen this finding of fact during the appeal, emphasizing that the duty had been paid on the intermediate products used as inputs. Consequently, the court affirmed the tribunal's order, answering all questions in favor of the respondent and dismissing the appeal. The court commended the tribunal's realistic and plausible view of the matter, leading to the decision to uphold the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2007.

In conclusion, the court found that the respondent had not wrongfully availed of any duty credit and had complied with the duty payment requirements for inputs used in manufacturing final products exempt from duty. The judgment provides clarity on the application of Rule 57CC in cases where duty-exempt final products utilize inputs on which duty was paid, emphasizing the importance of maintaining separate inventory and accounts for such inputs to avoid duty payment discrepancies.