9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to show that, the credit of duty availed on inputs has been utilized for payment of duty on those final products only for which they were intended as per declaration filed under Rule 57G. 2. The appellants were alleged in the show cause notice, to have suppressed the facts by not producing the statement of input credit availed, for manufacture of each final product which is in contravention of Rule 57(1)(i) and (4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and credit so availed is recoverable under proviso to sub-rule (1)(i) of Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Penal action under Rule 173Q(1) a(bb) and (d), read with Rule 210 ibid was also proposed. 3. The adjudicating authority in his order-in-original observed that: (i) The judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvat credit in respect of any input can be utilized on payment of duty on any of the final products in manufacture for which the input is indicated to be used. Reliance placed in case of M/s. Rama Cables and Wire Ltd. reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 256 (T), and M/s. Sawottam Ispat Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 181 (T). (b) Modvat credit is also not deniable where common inputs have been utilized in manufacture of several final product. Reliance in case of M/s. Ideal Electronic reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 94 (T). (c) Credit of duty on common input can be utilized towards payment of duty on any of the final product covered by the declaration reliance placed in case of M/s. Nisha Conductors reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 298 (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary issue before me is regarding use of the Modvat credit for payment of duty on final product in the manufacture of which the said inputs allegedly had not been actually used. 9. It can be inferred that, the department insisted for one to one co-relation as in the show cause notice it alleged that the appellant neither submitted a statement indicating the input credit availed and utilized in respect of each final product manufactured nor had maintained any records to ensure that, the credit of duty availed on inputs had been utilized for payment of duty on those final products only for which they were intended. 10. In the impugned order I find the adjudicating authority while interpreting the relevant time Rule viz. 57(1)(i) of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-rule (1) of Rule 57G. The terms inputs and final product have been defined in Rule 57G, as the excisable goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and as finished excisable goods respectively. Therefore, so long as the duty paid on any of the goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product used in payment of duty in the excisable goods there is compliance of sub-rule (3) of Rule 57F. 12. I therefore agree with the appellant s argument that, insistence for one to one co-relation of Modvat is negatived by use of the word intended . The significance of which is held by Hon ble CEGAT in above said order which also states that, if the Rule did not contain this word it could possible be permissibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
