2000 (3) TMI 419 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeals
- Eligibility of accessories as input under Rule 57-A of Central Excise Rules

Delay in Filing Appeals:
The judgment involves 12 appeals filed by the Revenue accompanied by applications to condone the delay in filing the appeals. After hearing both sides and considering a delay of 5 to 6 days, the judge opined that the delay could be condoned in these cases. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned.

Eligibility of Accessories as Input under Rule 57-A of Central Excise Rules:
The main issue in these cases revolved around whether accessories of the final product cleared along with the end product qualify as eligible inputs under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing P & P medicines, were availing Modvat Credit on disposable syringes and needles supplied with the injections they manufactured. The department contended that syringes and needles were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, hence the respondents were not entitled to take Modvat credit under Rule 57-A. The department filed appeals based on the argument that the items were not used in or in relation to the finished product, citing a previous Tribunal order.

The respondents argued that clause (e) (ii) of Rule 57-A, introduced from 29.6.1995, supported their claim. The clause included accessories of the final product cleared along with the final product as eligible inputs. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the matter and held that disposable syringes and needles packed with the injections were accessories to the injections and thus eligible for Modvat credit from 29-6-1995 to 31-10-1997. However, for the period 1-1-1995 to 28-6-1995, the CEGAT Order indicated that Modvat credit on these items was not admissible. The judge, after reviewing the facts and the introduction of clause (e), agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that accessories of the final product cleared along with the final product should be considered as inputs. Consequently, the judge found no infirmity on this issue and dismissed the appeals accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of condoning the delay in filing the appeals and determining the eligibility of accessories as inputs under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, ultimately upholding the decision that accessories of the final product cleared along with the end product qualify as inputs for the purpose of Modvat credit.