Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (9) TMI 606

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst Shri Vivek Nagpal and Shri R.K. Chawla. The assessee has filed cross appeal against confiscated raw material and its redemption on payment of Rs. 30,000/- as fine in lieu of confiscation and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Since the two appeals arise out of the same order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. Padmini Polymers are engaged in the manufacture of articles of plastics falling under Chapter sub-heading 3923.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was alleged that they were wrongly availing the benefit of duty free clearances of the goods in terms of Notification No. 4/97, dt. 1-4-97. Scrutiny of the seized records, classi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ure of exempted goods; that the Rules were silent on the aspect of the storage. It was further contended that manufacturers of goods classifiable under Chapter 39 of CETA, 85 were expressly exempted from the applicability of Rule 57CC(1); that procedural formality to be followed by such manufacturers was contained in Rule 57CC(9) which was to maintain separate inventory and accounts of Modvatable raw materials used in the manufacture of exempted goods; that this provision had been complied with by the assessee inasmuch as a separate and distinct RG 23A Part I register had been maintained in respect of such inputs. Ld. Commissioner after considering their submissions and examining the evidence on record as also the case law, dropped the proc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was taken were really the inputs which were actually used for making exempted containers; that the condition of the notification was not satisfied and duty was demanded, among other things, on such containers cleared without payment of duty. 6. Ld. DR also submitted that Modvat rules at the relevant time not only provided that no credit was admissible in respect of inputs which were exempted from excise duty but the rules also provided that where a manufacturer avails of the credit of specified duty on any inputs and he is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is exempt from the whole of duty of excise in the same factory the manufacturer should follow the procedure set out in sub-rule (1) of Rule 57CC. Ld. DR also submit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter as well as RG 23A Part-I. He submits that since separate accounts were being maintained for inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods and those used in the manufacture of dutiable goods, there was no case made out by the appellants. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner may be upheld and the appeal filed by Revenue may be rejected. 10. We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the evidence on record. We have also perused the law cited and relied upon by both the sides as also the requirement of Notification No. 4/97 and Rules 57C and 57CC. We note that Notification No. 4/97 completely exempts final products classifiable under Chapter Heading 79.23, 39.23 or 39.26 from duty o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the respondent herein. We have examined the provisions of Rules 57C and 57CC and we do not see any such requirement of separate storage of the two categories of inputs. We note that under Rule 57CC(9) what is required is that separate inventory and accounts of the receipt, use of inputs for the purpose of manufacture of final products cleared under exemption be maintained. We note that the adjudicating authority has examined each aspect legally as well as factually for coming to the conclusion. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner. The same is, therefore, upheld in so far as M/s. Padmini Polymers and Shri Vivek Nagpal and Shri R.K. Chawla are concerned. The same is sustai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates