1994 (9) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether Modvat Credit availed by the manufacturer is includible in the assessable value of the final product.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing emulsifiers and surface active agents, some of which were captively consumed for the finished product. The Department contended that excise duty paid on raw material, for which Modvat Credit was availed, should be included in the assessable value. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) upheld this view, leading to the appeal. The key contention was whether Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules applied since the goods were not sold but captively consumed. The appellants argued that no duty could be recovered on Modvat Credit, citing relevant Tribunal decisions. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that Modvat Credit did not reduce the assessable value, citing Supreme Court decisions and precedents like Khaitan Fans (P) Ltd. The Revenue emphasized that Modvat Credit only allowed the manufacturer to take credit of duty on inputs, not affecting the assessable value.

The Revenue further argued that Modvat Credit had been misunderstood by the appellants, asserting that it did not impact the assessable value of the final product. The Revenue referred to various decisions to support their stance, highlighting that Modvat Credit was a benefit for utilizing duty paid on inputs but did not automatically reduce the assessable value determined under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Revenue pointed out that decisions like Kamala Mills Ltd. and Sri Srinivasan Foundry supported their interpretation. The Department also contended that the decision in the case of Incab Industries favored the Revenue, emphasizing that Modvat Credit did not directly reduce the assessable value.

After considering the submissions from both sides and the case law cited, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's arguments regarding the conflict between the decision in Atic Industries Ltd. and earlier Tribunal decisions. Given the conflicting interpretations and the reliance on Incab Industries by both parties, the Tribunal decided to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for resolution. The Larger Bench was tasked with considering whether Modvat Credit should be included in the assessable value, the conformity of the Atic Industries decision with Incab Industries, and other related points. The Tribunal refrained from expressing an opinion on the issue and deferred to the Larger Bench for a conclusive decision, following the precedent set in Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd.