Modvat credit on imported inputs was limited to duty-equivalent amounts; excess customs duty was not creditable.

Modvat credit under Rule 57A was confined by Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) to specified duties, namely central excise duty, additional duty of excise under the 1978 Act, and additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act only to the extent of duty equivalence. For imported webbings, the extra customs duty paid beyond the amount equivalent to central excise duty fell outside that limited credit scheme because no separate additional duty of excise was leviable under the 1978 Act and no enabling provision extended credit further. Credit on the disputed excess duty was therefore inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit was admissible on the additional duty of customs paid on imported webbings beyond the duty equivalent to central excise duty under Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) and Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) allowed Modvat credit, for purposes of Rule 57A, only in respect of the duty of excise under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the additional duty of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, and the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to the extent equivalent to those duties. The imported input in question attracted additional duty of customs only to the extent equivalent to central excise duty, while no separate additional duty of excise was leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. The extra levy paid under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was not within the limited credit scheme created by Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.), and there was no enabling provision to extend credit beyond the specified equivalence.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was not admissible on the disputed additional duty beyond the amount equivalent to central excise duty, and the disallowance was upheld against the assessee.

---