Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Beena Manufacturers (P) Ltd. on 20 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(66)ECC251
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a revenue appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 428/90 dated 27.12.1990, setting aside the Order-in-Original confirming the duty amount of Rs. 1,55,328.70 being the duty leviable on inputs held in stock as on 01.05.1988, which were used in power driven pumps cleared without payment of duty as per Notification No. 142/88 dated 18.04.1988. The Commissioner (Appeals) had examined all these facts and the case-laws and held that the demand of duty allegedly leviable on inputs held in stock on 01.05.88 by the lower authority is entirely misconceived. He noted that the end products were exempted in terms of Notification No. 142/88 dated 18.04.88, therefore, the Modvat facility ceased to be available in respect of these inputs and corresponding outputs with effect from this date i.e. 18.04.88. He has noted that the factual position as to what credit was outstanding on this date in Part II of R.G.23A account maintained by the assessee should have been ascertained. The credit amount so outstanding in Part II of R.G. 23A account of the party on 18.04.88 alone can be directed to be expunged and no duty can be demanded relating to the inputs held in stock corresponding to Part I of this account and this is in terms of the Tribunal judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Wipro Information Technology as . In effect, he has set aside the order and remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner with a direction that the credit outstanding in R.G. 23A Part-II of the party as on 18.4.88 should be ascertained. He has also given a direction that the appellants are required to expunge this credit alone and if this credit has been utilised for payment of duty on the end product subsequent to this date, the same should be made up in cash or through debit in PLA Account. He has noted that the appellants are not liable to pay any duty on the inputs lying in stock corresponding to the entry in R.G. 23A Part I of the party on 18.04.1988.
2. The learned D.R. reiterates the grounds taken in the appeal and submits that the remand order is not correct and the entire duty should have been confirmed.
3. The learned Chartered Accountant submits that in their own case CCE v. Beena Manufacturers (P) Ltd. as , the Tribunal has held that Modvat credit taken on inputs lying unutilised is not required to be reversed because of issue of exemption notification during the pendency of utilisation of Modvat on inputs. He has also referred to the judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Becon Weir Ltd. as and submits that this judgment has since been followed by this Bench in the case of Kishan Products Ltd. v. CCE as . He submits that the ratio of this judgment would apply to the facts of the present case and the Commissioner (Appeals) reasoning is in consonance with the law and no verification has been done by the department, as the credit taken by the appellants in respect of inputs utilised for manufacture of parts of power driven pumps was in order.
4. On a careful consideration of the submissions, I notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly applied and interpreted the law and has rightly given the order of the remand for ascertaining the credit outstanding in R.G. 23A Part II as on 18.04.88. I further notice that he ordered that the appellants are required to expunge this credit alone. The Commissioner (Appeals) order is in the line of the ratio of judgment pronounced by the Tribunal on this issue as noted above. There is no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) reasoning. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the grounds of appeal and hence the appeal is rejected.