2003 (12) TMI 251 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of Modvat credit for imported inputs due to non-fulfillment of export obligation. Interpretation of Rule 7(1)(b) and Explanation to that Rule.

In this case, the appellant, a manufacturer of medicines liable for central excise duty, appealed against the denial of Modvat credit for certain imported inputs. The inputs were initially cleared without paying customs duty under the DEC Scheme, but duty, including additional duty of customs CVD, was later paid due to failure to fulfill export obligations. The impugned order rejected the credit claim citing Rule 7(1)(b) and its Explanation, which, according to the order, only applied to cases where additional duty was paid initially and further payment was made. The appellant argued that Rule 7 allowed for the use of supplementary documents for taking additional credit regardless of whether the duty paid initially was full or partial. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's interpretation, emphasizing that the only ineligibility for credit was in cases of duty recoverable due to fraud, collusion, or misstatement, not based on whether the initial duty was fully paid. Since the impugned order confirmed the short-levy was not due to fraudulent activities, the denial of credit was deemed erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.