1995 (12) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of Modvat on inputs used by the manufacturer.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved four appeals concerning the eligibility of Modvat on inputs used by the manufacturer. The first appeal, E/1808, dealt with the refusal of credit on aluminium bronze rods and phosphor bronze wire due to non-declaration under Rule 57G. The Tribunal noted that while these goods were not specifically declared, they fell under the category of bars and rods, wire of copper and copper alloys, which were declared. As bronze is an alloy of copper, and there was no evidence to suggest copper was not the predominant metal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that credit should have been granted.

In the second appeal, E/1810/93-NB, the appellant requested withdrawal of the appeal, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Moving to the third appeal, E/2044, the Tribunal addressed the denial of credit on aluminium scrap and red phosphorus. While credit on red phosphorus was allowed as it was figured in the declaration, credit on aluminium scrap was denied due to the lack of a gate pass when received from the manufacturers. The Tribunal rejected the argument for deemed credit on goods directly supplied by the manufacturers, citing government orders and confirming the Collector's findings.

Furthermore, the Tribunal discussed the appellant's attempt to claim higher rates of deemed credit on goods already credited based on revised government orders. However, since the goods were not in stock on the specified date, the denial of credit was upheld. Additionally, credit for special excise duty was refused initially due to lack of indication on the sale invoice, but after verification, the credit was allowed as it was found that the duty had been paid.

In the last appeal, E/1857/93-NB, credit denial on aluminium scrap supplied by the manufacturer was confirmed. Credit refusal on lead oxide was also addressed, with the Tribunal allowing credit despite incorrect classification by the supplier, as the substance was cleared as a paint. The judgment concluded by disposing of the appeals accordingly, granting credit in certain instances and upholding denials based on the specific circumstances of each case.