2005 (12) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding Modvat credit of differential duty.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57E and Rule 57G regarding time limits for availing credit.
3. Applicability of restrictions on specified documents to Rule 57E certificates.
4. Confirmation of interest and penalty in case of non-utilization of credit.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved the resolution of two appeals concerning a disputed issue related to Modvat credit of a differential duty amount. The first appeal, E/1589/03/NB-C, focused on the delay in availing credit of Rs. 27.61 lakhs by the appellant, which was paid by the input-manufacturer in March 1995. The certificate under Rule 57E was issued on 29th March 1995, but the appellant took the credit after a lapse of six months. The crux of the matter was the interpretation of Rule 57E and Rule 57G in terms of the time limit for availing such credit.

The appellant's counsel argued that prior to 1-3-97, certificates issued under Rule 57E were not subject to the time limit introduced in Rule 57G. However, post 1-3-97, Rule 57E certificates were specified under Rule 57G(3), thereby making them subject to the six-month time limit for availing credit. The appellant contended that certificates issued before 1-3-97 should not be bound by the time limitation. In contrast, the ld. SDR maintained that the Supreme Court's decision in Osram Surya (P) Ltd. case applied uniformly to all certificates, irrespective of issuance date.

Upon deliberation, the Tribunal concurred with the ld. SDR's stance, emphasizing that once Rule 57E certificates were specified documents under Rule 57G(3), the restrictions under Rule 57G(5) applied retroactively. The Tribunal aligned with the view that the limitation introduced in 1997 was equally applicable to certificates issued before that date, rejecting the appellant's argument for a distinction based on issuance date. Consequently, the Modvat credit taken by the appellant in 1998 based on 1995 certificates was deemed non-compliant with Rule 57G(5).

In the second appeal, the authorities had confirmed interest on the unutilized credit amount and adjusted the penalty. However, the appellant contended that they had not utilized the credit, leading to a dispute over the validity of the interest imposition. Notably, the ld. DR did not contest this claim, prompting the Tribunal to rule that in the absence of credit utilization, no interest could be rightfully imposed. Consequently, Appeal No. E/1859/2003 was rejected, while Appeal No. E/4361/04 was allowed, marking the conclusion of the judgment delivered on 12-12-2005.