1996 (4) TMI 278 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for Modvat credit on empty glass bottles, rejection of refund claims by Assistant Collector and Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), exclusion of aerated water from Modvat Scheme, interpretation of Rule 57H for credit claims, admissibility of Modvat credit on bottles used for aerated waters, delayed submission of application under Rule 57H, regulation under Rule 57F(3) for jobwork, remand for de novo decision on merits.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the appeal of manufacturers of aerated waters regarding the admissibility of Modvat credit on various refund claims. The appellants had filed three refund claims, including credit for empty glass bottles, essence consignment, and transfer of amounts from RG 23 to RG 23A Part II. The claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) based on the exclusion of aerated water from the Modvat Scheme effective from 1-10-1987. The Collector (Appeals) did not pass a detailed order on merits but stated that the credits were correctly disallowed, which was challenged in the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the exclusion of aerated water from the Modvat Scheme only meant that credit could not be earned on inputs received after 1-10-1987. The Tribunal referred to precedents to support this view. Regarding the interpretation of Rule 57H for credit claims, the Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector had incorrectly rejected the claims based on the timing of filing and conditions of the rule. The Tribunal emphasized that the admissibility of the claim should be based on satisfying the conditions of Rule 57H, not arbitrary rejection.

Regarding Modvat credit on bottles used for aerated waters, the Tribunal considered the delayed clarification on admissibility and condoned the delayed submission of the application for glass bottles. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of jobwork under Rule 57F(3) for affixing ceramic labels on bottles, emphasizing the need for proper regulation and permissions. The Tribunal found that objections raised by the department lacked statutory support and directed a de novo decision on merits by the Assistant Commissioner after considering all observations made.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing adherence to the provisions of Rule 57H and proper consideration of all relevant aspects, including the admissibility of Modvat credit and regulatory requirements for jobwork.