Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Cce vs Bombay Dyeing And Mfg. Co. Ltd. on 11 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(170)ELT534(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
K.K. Usha, J. (President)
1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.11.98. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of, inter alia, cotton fabrics, man-made fabrics and toweling cloth falling under Chapter 52, 55 and 58 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Under declaration dated 13.4.1994 given under Rule 57G(1) the respondent had claimed three bleaching chemicals used for bleaching of fabrics of Chapter 52 as inputs used for manufacture of coated fabrics of Chapter 59. Show cause notice was issued proposing to deny the credit availed for on the said bleaching chemicals. The adjudicating authority also denied the entire modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 68,53,626 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.
2. The adjudicating authority took the view that BTRA relied on by the respondent cannot be accepted as evidence in view of the note in the letter stating that "The information contained in this letter and/or enclosed report is/are purely meant for your guidance and should not be used for litigation/evidence/advertisement." It was also held that no separate account was maintained from raw material stage for consumption of inputs in dutiable and modvatable and non-modvatable final products and that no documentary evidence was given in support of availment of proportional credit. Aggrieved by the order the assessee filed an appeal. Commissioner (Appeals) under order dated 30.11.98 took the view that credit on the bleaching chemicals used for bleaching of processed fabrics of Chapter 52 used for manufacture of coated fabrics of Chapter 59 is admissible. The above order is challenged before us at the instance of the Revenue.
3. The main contention raised in this appeal is that no separate accounts for consumption of inputs as required under Trade Notice 46/94 is maintained, that BTRA's report cannot be relied on and that credit on input actually used alone is eligible.
4. We heard the Learned DR and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. It is relevant to note that in the case of the respondent itself for a different period the adjudicating authority has under order dated 14.1.98 accepted the norms for textile published by ATIRA/BTRA. It was held that quantification of the bleaching chemical for processing goods falling under Chapter 59 based on the norms of BTRA is acceptable. In the present case, the Revenue has no alternative contention that if BTRA is not acceptable what should be the alternates form. We are also or the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur 1996 (81) ELT 3. We find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned.
5. In the result the appeals stand dismissed.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the Court on 17.3.2004)