2017 (8) TMI 1210 - AT - Central Excise

Intermediate goods - Compound rubber - captive consumption - benefit of N/N. 74/94 dated 28.3.1994 - Held that - the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ralson (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I 2015 (4) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT , has held that in view of consistent policy of the Government, by granting exemption of compound rubber, withdrawal of exemption by N/N. 64/94 dated 1.3.1994 was an inadvertent error. That Government realizing this mistake had reintroduced exemption which had to be treated as correction / clarification having retrospective effect. Thus, it was held that for the interim period, the compound rubber was not exigible to duty - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Exemption availability for compound rubber during a specific period.
Challenge to the quantification of duty on compound rubber.
Interpretation of the judgment in Ralson (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh.
Retrospective effect of reintroduced exemption on compound rubber.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the duty liability on compound rubber used in the manufacture of tyres for animal-drawn vehicles during a specific period when the exemption from basic excise duty was rescinded and then reintroduced through subsequent notifications.
2. The Tribunal initially remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for quantification of duty liability, directing the allowance of MODVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing compound rubber for ADV tyres.
3. The respondent argued that the exemption for compound rubber during the interim period was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ralson (India) Ltd. case, rendering the demand unsustainable.
4. The department contended that the respondent had previously accepted duty liability and challenged only the quantification, precluding them from disputing the duty applicability on compound rubber.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court's subsequent judgment clarified that the withdrawal of exemption for compound rubber was an inadvertent error, leading to the reintroduction of the exemption with retrospective effect for the interim period, making the compound rubber non-exigible to duty during that time.
6. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the issue of levy of duty on compound rubber was settled in favor of the respondent/assessee based on the retrospective effect of the reintroduced exemption.
7. Therefore, the appeals filed by the department were dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the reduction in the differential duty demand for the compound rubber used in tyre manufacturing.