2000 (8) TMI 338 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether duty payment is required for repacking pan masala?
2. Applicability of Rule 173H for duty payment.
3. Interpretation of case law on similar situations.
4. Modvat credit on defective goods for reprocessing.

Analysis:

1. Repacking of Pan Masala: The issue revolved around whether duty payment was necessary for repacking pan masala. The Revenue argued that repacking amounts to manufacture, necessitating duty payment at the time of clearance. The appellant contended that the pan masala packed in unit containers received for remaking and repacking did not require additional duty payment as it remained the same product. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held in favor of the appellants, stating that under Rule 173H, they were not liable to pay duty on the impugned order.

2. Rule 173H Application: The appellant's case was based on opting for the procedure under Rule 173H, which allowed them to receive pan masala for reprocessing without additional duty payment. The Ld. Consultant argued that the pan masala packed in unit containers received back for remaking and repacking should not attract duty payment, as it did not result in a new product. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that the facts in this case aligned with those considered in the Rule 173H framework.

3. Interpretation of Case Law: Both parties cited relevant case law to support their arguments. The Revenue referenced a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Dharampal Satyapal and Others, asserting that duty payment was necessary for the repacking process. Conversely, the appellant relied on the case of Lustre Print Media Ltd. v. CCE Meerut, where it was established that reprocessing pan masala did not constitute manufacturing, thus not requiring additional duty payment. The Tribunal differentiated the cited cases, highlighting the similarity between the present case and the one relied upon by the respondents.

4. Modvat Credit on Defective Goods: The Ld. Consultant argued that when defective goods are received for reprocessing or remaking in the factory, Modvat credit is admissible on the defective goods as inputs. This further supported the appellant's position that no duty payment was necessary on the pan masala cleared after reprocessing. The Tribunal considered these arguments, along with the precedents and evidence on record, and concluded that no infirmity existed in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the decision in favor of the appellants.