9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luoron 11 and fluoron 12 used in the manufacture of the said mixture and therefore, were not entitled to the Modvat credit since fluoron 11 and fluorn 12 were wholly exempt under Notification No. 217/86. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture chlorofluro hydrocarbon of methane (fluoron 11 and fluoron 12) classifiable under sub-heading 3821.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee availed the facility of credit of duty paid on inputs under the Modvat scheme under Rule 57A after filing declaration under Rule 57G. The department alleged that the appellants had produced and cleared mixture of chlorofluro hydrocarbons of methane; that for the purpose of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional Collector confirmed the demand and also held that fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 are not intermediate products but they are final products as declared by the assessee. 3. Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that some observations of the Collector (Appeals) are factually incorrect; that the appellants had not contended at any point of time that the mixture is an intermediate product. He submits that the contention of the appellants was that the gases fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 are intermediate products when certain quantities of these gases are used in the manufacture of mixture; that fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 have been declared as final products; that credit taken on the inputs used in the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been in conformity with the requirement under Rule 57G. It was argued that this decision of the Tribunal squarely covers their case. The learned Counsel submits that the product in dispute is nothing but mixtures of fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 which were declared in the declaration on 1-3-1989. He submits that the ratio of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Paro Food Products [1988 (38) E.L.T. 332] is not applicable to the present case. He submits that the appellants during the material period were manufacturing fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 and mixtures of fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 as is evident from the classification effective from 28-3-1993. He submits that the department was fully aware that the appellants were manufacturing mixtur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is that fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 were declared as final product. The classification of these hydrocarbons was shown as under sub-heading 29.10. Now the question that arises is whether the mixtures of fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 are chlorofluro hydrocarbons of methane. We find that there is no dispute that fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 are chlorofluro hydrocarbons. The mixtures of fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 will therefore be also chlorofluro hydrocarbons though they will be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3823.00. Our attention during course of argument was drawn by the learned Counsel that the appellants in their classification list submitted during the material period had shown the mixtures of fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 as product man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty. We note that the fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 can be treated as intermediate products in as much as they were used subsequently for the manufacture of mixtures. In view of the discussions we hold that the benefit of Rule 57D will be applicable to fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 captively consumed in the factory. In the circumstances we hold that Rule 57C will not be applicable to the present case. 8. The other point that may be dealt with is whether the inputs declared for the purpose of chlorofluro hydrocarbons can be treated as inputs for mixtures of fluoron 11 and fluoron 12. Here the fact is that the mixtures of fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 were obtained only by mixing these two gases in specific proportion there was no addition or subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s their availment of Modvat credit was concerned. In this view of the matter, we hold that the declaration as filed by the respondents can be taken to have been in conformity with the requirement under Rule 57G as held by the learned appellate authorities." 10. Having regard to the above finding we find that the ratio of this judgment clearly covers the case of the appellants. The ratio of the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Paro Food Products will not be applicable to the present case. 11. On careful consideration of the above findings and case law relied upon by the appellants we hold that the Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs shall be admissible to the appellants for making debit entry while clearing mixtures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
