1988 (10) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of eligibility for availing credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs when an intermediate product is not leviable with Central Excise duty.

Summary:
The appeal was directed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The case involved M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd., manufacturers of Organic Chemicals, using duty paid molasses in the manufacture of final products. The dispute centered around whether the appellants could avail credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs, specifically molasses, given that the intermediate product, ethyl alcohol, was not subject to Central Excise duty. The relevant rule, Rule 57D(2), stated that credit of specified duty allowed in respect of inputs shall not be denied on the ground that intermediate products are exempt from duty, provided they are used in the manufacture of final products within the factory. The appellants argued that they should be entitled to the credit, while the respondent contended otherwise.

The Tribunal analyzed the scheme of credit under Notification No. 176/86-CE and related rules. It was noted that ethyl alcohol was not leviable with Central Excise duty, but the final products were chargeable to such duty. The definition of "duty" under Central Excise Rule 2(v) referred only to Central Excise duty, not other duties. The Tribunal interpreted the rules to further the scheme's objective of mitigating the cascading effect of Central Excise duty on inputs. It was highlighted that ethyl alcohol was specified as an input for the final products, indicating its inclusion in the relief scheme. The intention behind the notification was to provide input duty relief for products liable to excise duty.

Referring to a Supreme Court observation on statutory interpretation, the Tribunal emphasized the need to interpret statutes to promote the legislative intent and purpose. It was deemed anomalous to restrict input duty relief only to intermediate products subject to Central Excise duty, especially when they may be exempt or subject to nil duty. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were eligible for credit of duty paid on inputs, despite ethyl alcohol not being leviable with Central Excise duty. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.