1998 (2) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57F(3)(i) regarding utilization of credit on inputs for payment of duty on final products.
2. Determining the commonality of inputs for different final products under Rule 57F(3)(i).
3. Comparison of decisions in Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd. v. CCE and United Canning Company v. CCE for applicability in the current case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a question of law regarding the entitlement of a manufacturer to make duty payments out of a consolidated RG 23 Part II register when some inputs were not common for all final products. The Revenue contended that credit on inputs should only be used for duty payment on similar final products, citing Rule 57F(3)(i) and the Tribunal's decision in Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd. v. CCE. The respondents argued that the inputs were common for all final products despite differences, emphasizing the usage of inputs in the manufacturing process.

2. The respondents, manufacturers of various products falling under different chapters, were availing Modvat credit but failed to submit required statements showing common inputs utilization. The Revenue issued show cause notices for duty recovery, claiming lack of commonality among inputs for different final products. However, the demands were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on precedents like Sawottam Ispat P. Ltd. v. CCE. The Tribunal upheld this decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and prompting the current application for reference.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the usage of inputs in all final products, noting that the concept of common inputs applies when different final products are manufactured. The Tribunal distinguished the case from Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd. and United Canning Company, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a nexus between inputs and final products for Modvat credit utilization. Since the inputs were used in all final products, the Tribunal concluded that no question of law necessitated a reference to the High Court, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's application.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Rule 57F(3)(i) regarding common inputs utilization for different final products, emphasizing the actual usage of inputs in the manufacturing process over strict similarity among final products. The Tribunal's decision provides guidance on establishing a nexus between inputs and final products for Modvat credit utilization, ensuring compliance with excise duty regulations.