1998 (10) TMI 214 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-appeal dated 29-4-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad.
2. Claim for set-off under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. for duty paid on inputs.
3. Admissibility of proforma credit on inputs under Notification No. 95/79-C.E.
4. Rejection of claim for proforma credit for a specific period.
5. Interpretation of the judgment in the case of Goodyear - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 39 (Delhi).
6. Invoking Section 11A during provisional assessments.
7. Failure to provide required information and invoking Section 11A prematurely.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal dated 29-4-1992 by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad. The appellant, a manufacturer of automotive tyres, tubes, and flaps, received various inputs falling under Tariff Item 68. The appellant claimed set-off/proforma credit in RG-23 Accounts following Notification No. 201/79-C.E. and Rule 56A. The Range Superintendent issued 36 show cause notices proposing to demand full duty on the cleared products. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, leading the appellant to pay under protest.

2. The Collector (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, prompting the appellant to challenge the rejection of set-off claim under Notification No. 201/79. The appellant cited the case of M/s. Vikrant Tyres, where the Tribunal allowed proforma credit on inputs covered by Notification No. 95/79-C.E. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the claim for a later period but rejected it for the earlier period, up to 28-2-1983.

3. The appellant argued that the case fell under the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Goodyear. The Department emphasized the appellant's failure to provide necessary information, leading to the initiation of proceedings and confirmation of demand under Section 11A. The appellant contended that the show cause notice was premature as assessments were provisional.

4. The Tribunal observed that invoking Section 11A during provisional assessments was incorrect, following the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Ponds (India) Ltd. The Department's actions were deemed premature, as Section 11A can only be invoked after finalizing assessments. The Tribunal quashed the show cause notices issued under Section 11A, in line with the Supreme Court's directive, without delving into the merits of the matter.