2005 (6) TMI 172 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of the definition of "input" under Rule 57AA(d) of the C.E. Rules, 1944 regarding availing input duty credit on naphtha used as fuel for generation of electricity.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI revolves around the interpretation of the definition of "input" under Rule 57AA(d) of the C.E. Rules, 1944. The appellants, who are manufacturers of Organic chemicals, availed input duty credit on naphtha used as fuel for the generation of steam, which was then used for the production of electricity consumed captively and externally by their sister unit. The lower authorities disallowed this credit, stating that naphtha used in this manner did not fall under the definition of "input." The key issue in this case was to determine whether naphtha used for generating electricity would qualify as an "input" under Rule 57AA(d).

Upon careful examination of the records and arguments from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the definition of "input" under Rule 57AA(d) and compared it with the previous Rule 57B(1) to establish continuity in the list of inputs covered. The dispute arose between the appellants, who claimed naphtha fell under "goods used as fuel," and the Revenue, which argued it was covered under "goods used for generation of electricity or steam within the factory of production." The Tribunal emphasized that the term "fuel" was distinct from "goods used for generation of electricity" as per the rules, indicating that naphtha, being used as fuel within the factory, qualified for Modvat credit regardless of its specific usage for electricity generation.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that all inputs must be used within the factory to qualify for Modvat credit, emphasizing that naphtha's use as fuel within the factory made it eligible for the credit. The judgment highlighted that the term "goods used as fuel" encompassed naphtha in this case, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were entitled to input duty credit for the material period. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's attempt to draw parallels between Modvat credit and Exemption Notification benefits, asserting that the SDR's arguments did not support the Revenue's case. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any necessary consequential relief.