2002 (4) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility to utilize Modvat credit for different sizes of picture tubes.
2. Interpretation of "similar final products" under Rule 57F(4).
3. Entitlement to refund of excess Modvat credit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility to Utilize Modvat Credit for Different Sizes of Picture Tubes:
The primary issue revolves around the appellant's eligibility to utilize Modvat credit taken on inputs (Glass Shell and Electron Gun) used for manufacturing 14" picture tubes for discharging duty on 17" and 20" picture tubes. The appellant argued that since all sizes of TV tubes fall under sub-heading 8540.12, they should be considered as one final product. The appellant maintained a consolidated RG-23A Part II account and utilized Modvat credit for any size of picture tube cleared from the factory.

2. Interpretation of "Similar Final Products" under Rule 57F(4):
The appellant contended that 14" picture tubes are "similar final products" to 17" and 20" picture tubes, invoking the first proviso to Rule 57F(4). They argued that Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exported 14" tubes could be utilized for duty payment on 17" and 20" tubes. The Tribunal referenced several decisions to interpret "similar final products," notably:
- Hindustan Motor Ltd. v. CCE: The term "similar" does not mean identical but resembling in many respects.
- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE: Goods under the same general category can be considered similar.
- Nat Steel Equipment Ltd. v. CCE: "Similar" means corresponding to or resembling in many respects, not necessarily identical.

The Tribunal concluded that 14", 17", and 20" picture tubes are similar final products, allowing the appellant to utilize Modvat credit across different sizes.

3. Entitlement to Refund of Excess Modvat Credit:
The appellant sought a refund for the excess Modvat credit debited during the adjudication process. The Tribunal noted that Rule 57F(17), introduced via Notification No. 6/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-97, does not affect the appellant's claim under Rule 57F(13). The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to recalculate the lapsed credit amount, the period concerned, and determine any refund due.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal partly on merits and remanding it for recalculating the lapsed credit and determining the refund. The appellant was deemed eligible to utilize the Modvat credit taken on inputs for 14" picture tubes for discharging duty on 17" and 20" picture tubes, as they are considered similar final products.