2001 (9) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Failure to deposit entire duty and penalty confirmed by the Commissioner.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57CC regarding the deposit requirement for exempted final products.
3. Conflict between Deputy Commissioner's interpretation and the appellant's representative regarding Modvat credit.
4. Clarification on goods cleared without payment of duty under Rule 13 not being exempted goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner for not depositing the confirmed duty and penalty. The Assistant Commissioner's orders were based on the appellant's clearance of goods without payment of duty for export purposes, triggering the application of Rule 57CC, which mandates a deposit for exempted final products.

2. The appellant argued that goods cleared for export should not be considered exempted or chargeable at a nil rate of duty. The rule's intention not to demand duty on exported goods is supported by sub-rule (6) of Rule 57CC, exempting goods exported under Rule 13 from its provisions.

3. The Deputy Commissioner's view on Rule 57C potentially conflicting with the appellant's interpretation of Modvat credit utilization was discussed. It was clarified that goods cleared without duty payment under Rule 13 are not considered exempted goods, as established by legal precedents and statutory provisions.

4. The Tribunal highlighted that goods cleared without duty payment under Rule 12 or Rule 13 do not fall under the category of exempted or nil-rated goods. Citing relevant case law and statutory provisions, the Tribunal concluded that Rule 57CC does not apply to products cleared under Rule 12 or Rule 13, ultimately allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned orders.