Capital goods Modvat credit on factory sale: reversal demand rejected where no unutilised credit remained and transfer rules applied

On sale of a factory, reversal of Modvat credit on capital goods was held not to arise under the removal-based rule where the goods were not removed in the manner contemplated by Rule 57-S(2)(b) and no unutilised credit remained in the prescribed account; the transfer-or-sale regime was treated as the relevant framework, and the disputed demand was rejected. In the settlement application, fine, penalty and interest were not levied in view of the applicant's cooperation and prior deposit, and immunity from prosecution was granted for the matters covered by the application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty was payable on the amount of Modvat credit attributed to capital goods when the factory was sold outright and the capital goods were not removed from the factory in the sense contemplated by Rule 57-S(2)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) Whether fine, penalty and interest were leviable in the facts of the settlement application; and (iii) Whether immunity from prosecution could be granted in respect of the matter covered by the application.

Issue (i): Whether duty was payable on the amount of Modvat credit attributed to capital goods when the factory was sold outright and the capital goods were not removed from the factory in the sense contemplated by Rule 57-S(2)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 57-S(2) deals with removal of capital goods from the factory, either without use or after use, and the duty consequence depends on such removal. The settlement authority distinguished this from Rule 57-S(5), which governs transfer or sale of a factory and the treatment of unutilised credit. It held that where the factory is sold and there is no unutilised Modvat credit in the RG 23C register in relation to the capital goods, the demand of past credit reversal on the footing of removal from the factory does not arise.

Conclusion: The applicant was not liable to pay the disputed amount of Rs. 1,21,294/- on this count; the demand was disallowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether fine, penalty and interest were leviable in the facts of the settlement application.

Analysis: The authority took note of the applicant's cooperation and disclosure, and also of the deposit already made. In these circumstances, it declined to impose fine or penalty. On the question of interest, it held that no interest was to be levied notwithstanding the allegations noticed in the record, having regard to the prior deposit and the settlement approach adopted in the case.

Conclusion: Fine and penalty were waived, and no interest was levied, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether immunity from prosecution could be granted in respect of the matter covered by the application.

Analysis: The settlement order expressly provided immunity from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Indian Penal Code for the matter covered by the application.

Conclusion: Immunity from prosecution was granted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was settled on the basis of the admitted duty liability, the disputed capital-goods credit demand was rejected, and consequential monetary and penal consequences were substantially relieved.

Ratio Decidendi: On a sale of the factory, a demand for reversal of capital-goods Modvat credit does not arise under the removal-based rule where no unutilised credit in relation to such capital goods remained in the prescribed account; the transfer/sale regime for factory change governs instead.

---