1999 (6) TMI 78 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Confirmation of Central Excise duty on M.S. Flats exceeding 5 mm in thickness.
2. Eligibility for deemed Modvat credit based on Ministry's order dated 20-5-1988.
3. Compliance with procedure under Rule 57-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Central Excise duty on M.S. Flats exceeding 5 mm in thickness:

In the appeal filed by M/s. Guru Ram Dass Engg. Works (P) Ltd., the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8148.85 was confirmed for the clearances of M.S. Flats exceeding 5 mm in thickness for the period from 20-5-1988 to 6-6-1988. The duty was demanded because Notification No. 90/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988, which provided exemption, was superseded by Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988, withdrawing the exemption for M.S. Flats exceeding 5 mm in thickness. The adjudicating authority and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed this view, noting that from 20-5-1988 to 1-3-1989, no exemption was available under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. for flats exceeding 5 mm in thickness.

2. Eligibility for deemed Modvat credit based on Ministry's order dated 20-5-1988:

The appellants argued that they were eligible for deemed Modvat credit at Rs. 365 per M.T. as per the Ministry's letter F. No. 342/1/88-TRU, dated 20-5-1988, and only a differential duty of Rs. 20/- P.M.T. should be demanded. The Asst. Collector of Central Excise denied this credit on the grounds that the appellants failed to produce evidence that no credit had been availed on the inputs used. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this decision, citing non-compliance with Rule 57-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the inability to prove that no credit was availed under any other notification.

3. Compliance with procedure under Rule 57-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:

The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) noted that the appellants did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 57-G, which was necessary for extending the benefit of deemed Modvat credit. The Ministry's order dated 20-5-1988 specified that credit could not be allowed if it was already availed under any other rule or notification, or if the inputs were non-duty paid or exempt. The adjudicating authority and appellate authority did not provide clear findings on whether the appellants had availed credit under any other rule or notification.

Conclusion and Remand:

The Tribunal found that both the adjudicating and appellate authorities failed to provide clear findings regarding the availment of credit on the inputs in question under any other rule or notification. There was no evidence or instance noted where the appellants had availed of the benefit of any credit for the same inputs. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for de novo consideration, instructing the Commissioner to afford the appellants an opportunity to present their case and to pass a speaking appealable order as per law.

Final Decision:

The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further investigation and a detailed order by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

← Previous Next →