1990 (10) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras regarding the denial of MODVAT credit for inputs removed for manufacturing intermediate products through a job worker who cleared the goods on payment of duty. The issues revolve around compliance with Rule 57F(2) and Notification 214/86.

Comprehensive Details:

Compliance with Rule 57F(2):
The appellants availed MODVAT Credit for plastic raw materials and obtained permission under Rule 57F(2) to remove the inputs for manufacturing intermediate products through a job worker. The job worker cleared the goods on payment of duty, leading to the denial of MODVAT credit by the lower authority. The key contention was whether the appellants fulfilled the requirements of Rule 57F(2).

The learned Consultant argued that as long as the goods were returned to the appellants' factory, compliance with Rule 57F(2) was met, even if duty was paid by the job worker. He emphasized that all Rule 57F(2) conditions were satisfied, and the appellants rightfully claimed MODVAT credit upon receiving the intermediate products.

Interpretation of Rule 57F(2):
The dispute centered on whether the appellants adhered to Rule 57F(2) and qualified for MODVAT credit on the inputs used for manufacturing intermediate goods cleared by the job worker on duty payment. Rule 57F(2) permits the removal of inputs for various purposes, including manufacturing intermediate products, with the condition of returning processed inputs or goods to the factory for further use.

The Tribunal analyzed that while Rule 57F(2) allows duty-free removal of inputs for specific purposes, it does not specify the clearance procedure for goods manufactured from these inputs at the job worker's premises. The absence of explicit provisions for duty payment on intermediate goods led to a debate on the applicability of Rule 57F(2) in such scenarios.

Impact of Notification 214/86:
Notification 214/86 exempted goods manufactured on job work basis from duty if used in or related to the final product's manufacture. The question arose whether the job worker's duty payment affected the appellants' eligibility under Rule 57F(2 and Notification 214/86.

The Tribunal concluded that the job worker's duty payment did not alter the appellants' entitlement to MODVAT credit under Rule 57F(2. The appellants followed the prescribed procedures, and the duty payment by the job worker did not negate their right to claim credit for the inputs used in manufacturing intermediate goods. The transaction remained revenue-neutral, as the duty paid was credited by the appellants upon receiving the goods back.

In light of the analysis, the Tribunal held that the appellants were eligible for MODVAT credit concerning the goods removed for manufacturing intermediate products, thereby allowing the appeal.