1996 (3) TMI 215 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the inputs "Hegatreat and Hegafilm" used by the appellants in the manufacture of Synthetic Rubber qualify for MODVAT Credit.
2. Competency of the Superintendent of Central Excise to issue show cause notice cum demands notice beyond the prescribed period.
3. Whether the impugned inputs are considered parts of machinery in the manufacturing process.

Analysis:

Issue 1: MODVAT Credit Eligibility
The appellants availed MODVAT Credit for countervailing duty paid on imported inputs "Hegatreat and Hegafilm" for the manufacture of Synthetic Rubber. The department contended that these inputs were used for corrosion inhibition in machinery maintenance, not in the manufacture of Synthetic Rubber. The Learned Collector held that the inputs provided corrosion inhibition to machinery parts, which falls outside the scope of "input" under Rule 57A. The appellants argued that the inputs were essential for maintaining the required temperature for Synthetic Rubber production. They cited precedents where similar inputs were granted MODVAT Credit for being directly used in manufacturing processes. The Tribunal found that the inputs were used as corrosion inhibitors, not directly in the manufacturing process of Synthetic Rubber, thus upholding the Collector's decision.

Issue 2: Time Bar on Show Cause Notice
In Appeal E/385/92, the appellants challenged the competency of the Superintendent to issue show cause notice beyond the prescribed 6-month period. The Tribunal agreed that the demands raised beyond the 6-month period were not sustainable as the department did not allege suppression of facts or misdeclaration, as required for invoking the extended period under Section 11A or Rule 57-I. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the show cause notice for the initial 6-month period only.

Issue 3: Classification of Inputs as Machinery Parts
The appellants contested the classification of the impugned inputs as parts of machinery in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal noted that the inputs were used as corrosion inhibitors in cooling water and steam generation systems, aiding in machinery maintenance rather than being integral to the manufacturing process of Synthetic Rubber. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the Collector's decision that the inputs were not used directly in or in relation to the manufacture of Synthetic Rubber.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected Appeal E/384/92 and allowed Appeal E/385/92 by remand for consideration solely within the valid time frame of the show cause notice.