1996 (7) TMI 300 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over Modvat credit under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Utilization of inputs without prior permission under Rule 57H.
3. Interpretation of Rule 57H regarding Modvat credit eligibility.
4. Reversal of credit under protest.
5. Applicability of Modvat Scheme on inputs like packing material.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi addressed a dispute concerning Modvat credit under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant had reversed an amount of Rs. 2,11,564 under protest, which was the subject of contention. The appellant initially filed a declaration under the MODVAT Scheme covering various items, including hair oils, and subsequently declared a new brand of hair oil, "Almond Drop Hair Oil," under the same heading. However, a communication from the Superintendent directed the appellant to reverse the credit due to receiving raw materials before filing the declaration.

The appellant requested permission under Rule 57H to avail Modvat credit for inputs received before filing the declaration. The Assistant Collector granted permission and specified the quantity for which credit was allowed. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner directed the appellant to reverse the credit, citing an audit objection. The appellant complied under protest. A show cause notice alleged that the appellant utilized inputs without fulfilling Rule 57H conditions, leading to a demand confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals).

During the hearing, the Tribunal considered the case in light of previous decisions. Referring to the Safex Fire Services case, the Tribunal highlighted that taking Modvat credit without waiting for permission may invite penal liability but should not deny the benefit if the stock of inputs existed on the critical date and was used in manufacturing dutiable products. The Tribunal also cited the Aqueous Victuals Ltd. case, emphasizing that prior permission is not mandated under Rule 57H for credit on existing stock or inputs received before declaration.

The Tribunal noted that a significant portion of the disputed credit related to packing material, specifically bottles, which were included in the appellant's previous declarations. Given the absence of a one-to-one input-output ratio requirement under the Modvat Scheme, the inclusion of credit on such inputs in the demand was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the Modvat credit and ordered its restoration. The judgment set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, without delving into the Assistant Commissioner's authority to modify orders under Rule 57H.