1997 (1) TMI 312 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57S(2) regarding the utilization of duty credit on capital goods for payment of duty on final products.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals against adjudication orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara, confirming demands for Modvat on capital goods wrongly utilized by the appellants. The key issue at hand is whether duty credit on capital goods can only be used for payment of duty on final products manufactured using those specific capital goods or on any final product manufactured in the factory of the manufacturer.

The Commissioner, in the first adjudication order, found that the appellants had utilized Modvat credit on capital goods meant for specific plants for payment of duty on other final products. The Commissioner relied on Rule 57S(2) before its amendment and concluded that credit can only be used for duty on final products manufactured using the declared capital goods. The Commissioner ordered recovery of wrongly availed Modvat credit.

In the second adjudication order, post-amendment of Rule 57S(2), the Commissioner found that credit on capital goods for a specific plant that had not commenced production was utilized for other final products. The Commissioner confirmed the demand based on non-compliance with Rule 57Q.

The appellants argued that Rule 57S(2) allows credit utilization on any final product manufactured in the factory, and they had included all final products in their declaration under Rule 57T. They also cited previous Tribunal decisions supporting their position. However, the Department argued that the basic requirement of using capital goods in the factory had not been met.

The Tribunal analyzed the Modvat scheme's evolution, clarifications by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, and Trade Notices to interpret the rules. It emphasized that the use of capital goods in the factory is a prerequisite for credit allowance and utilization. The Tribunal highlighted that the amendments and clarifications emphasized the need for capital goods to enter the production process before credit utilization.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' utilization of credit on capital goods for final products not manufactured using those goods was irregular and against Rule 57Q. However, once the specific plants commenced production, credit restoration for eligible utilization was permissible, as seen in previous Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal directed that on payment of the demanded amount, the appellants would be entitled to corresponding credit in their Modvat account for the specific plants that had since commenced production, allowing for legitimate credit utilization.

In summary, the appeals were disposed of based on the above analysis and findings, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with Rule 57Q for credit utilization on final products manufactured using specific capital goods.