2000 (11) TMI 882 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of certain inputs in the Modvat scheme.
2. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara.
3. Application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

Eligibility of certain inputs in the Modvat scheme:
The Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara disposed of 27 appeals filed by M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. regarding the eligibility of specific inputs in the Modvat scheme. The Commissioner allowed Modvat credit for inputs like Ammonia, Propylene, Tri-Sodium Phosphate, Liquid Nitrogen, Code 10C, Feron, Nitrogen gas, Dowtherm, Methylene Chloride, Lithium Bromide, and Octyl Alcohol. However, the Commissioner denied Modvat credit for Fes Oil, De-mineralised water and steam, Lubricating Oil, Transformer Oil, Fatty Alcoholic non-toxic Acid, Refractory Balls, and Ceramic Balls. M/s. RIL filed four appeals against this order within the prescribed time frame under Section 35B(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara:
Shri Rohan Shah, representing M/s. RIL, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara, along with an application for condonation of a delay of about 746 days. The grounds for the delay included oversight in filing an appeal related to a specific order. During the arguments, it was highlighted that there was an error in the impugned order, leading to confusion regarding the admissibility of lubricating oil. The applicant argued that they had a strong case on merits, citing relevant Tribunal judgments supporting the admissibility of lubricating oil as an input.

Application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal:
Shri Rohan Shah, on behalf of M/s. RIL, sought condonation of the delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing reasons for the delay and the merits of their case. However, Shri K.M. Patwari, representing the Revenue, contended that the grounds presented were not substantial enough to justify condonation of the delay. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 35B(5) of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the need for applicants to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal found the reasons provided for condonation lacking in substance and dismissed the application, leading to the dismissal of the stay petition and the appeal itself.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai covers the issues of eligibility of inputs in the Modvat scheme, the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara's order, and the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The judgment provides insights into the decision-making process and the legal considerations involved in each issue, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case.