1997 (2) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether permission under Rule 57H can be granted by the Assistant Commissioner for inputs not in stock and used before seeking permission.
2. Whether a declaration filed for one brand of goods is valid for other brands known differently in trade practice.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appellant argued that permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 57H was based on incorrect stock verification, which was rectified later. The Assistant Commissioner can recover wrongly availed Modvat credit under Rule 57-I. The appellant contended that Rule 57G mandates filing a declaration specifying final products and intended inputs for each product before taking credit. The declaration was for Brahmi Amla Hair Oil and Jasmine Hair Oil, so availing Modvat credit without filing a declaration was incorrect. The appellant requested a statement of the case to be sent to the High Court for decision.

Issue 2:
The respondent argued that the Tribunal is not obliged to refer every point of law arising from an order. A question must be disputable to warrant referral. The Tribunal must refer only disputable legal questions. The respondent cited a Gauhati High Court case to support the position that not every legal point needs referral. In this case, which primarily involves factual issues, no legal question necessitating referral was identified. The respondent contended that the reference application should be rejected.

Judgment:
Upon consideration, the Tribunal found that Rule 57H allows the Assistant Commissioner to credit duty paid on inputs based on satisfaction, which is fact-dependent. The first issue raised for reference primarily pertained to factual matters rather than legal ones. The satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner is crucial in such cases. Therefore, no legal question requiring investigation was identified.
Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that Rule 57G does not mandate manufacturers to list raw materials product-wise if they produce multiple final products. The rule only requires clear specification of inputs and final products in the declaration. As no legal question arose from this issue, the reference application was rejected.