1999 (7) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against Order No. NK(446)/1063/94 seeking to recover Modvat credit of Rs. 25,183 on glass bottles used in manufacturing P&P medicine under Chapter 30 of Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The department's appeal challenged the impugned order seeking to recover Modvat credit availed by the respondent on glass bottles used in the manufacturing process. The respondent issued more bottles than the batch size to ensure production continuity, leading to some breakages during the final product manufacturing. The Superintendent issued a show cause notice to recover the Modvat credit under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules. The respondent argued against reversal citing a Ministry of Finance letter allowing Modvat benefit for waste arising in manufacturing processes. The Assistant Collector dropped the show cause notice, and the department's appeal was rejected. The respondent filed a cross-objection supporting the lower authorities' decisions.

The appellant contended that the broken glass bottles were not used in the manufacturing process and sought to recover the erroneously availed Modvat credit. Lack of evidence on the stage of breakage occurrence was highlighted. The respondent argued that the additional bottles were used in manufacturing, and breakages justified the Modvat credit claim. Relevant case laws were cited to support both arguments.

The main issue was whether there were sufficient grounds to allow the appeal. The judge examined the show cause notice, lower authorities' orders, relevant rules (57D, 57F, 57A, 57-I), case laws, and the Ministry of Finance's letter. The specific allegation of issuing more bottles than required for production continuity and the likelihood of breakages during manufacturing were deemed sufficient without needing additional proof. Rule 57D(1) applied to the case, considering glass scrap as non-excisable waste. The judge found the lower authorities' orders well-founded based on the cited laws and concluded that there were no grounds to set them aside. The cross-objection was considered exhaustive, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and disposal of the cross-objection.