2004 (1) TMI 454 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal Allows Modvat Credit Despite Denied SSI Exemption

DECENT FOODS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, upheld the impugned order confirming duty, interest, and penalty but allowed the appellants to claim Modvat ... Cenvat/Modvat - SSI Exemption - Denial of Issues: Denial of SSI exemption, Modvat credit entitlementThe judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, addressed the issue of denial of SSI exemption and entitlement to Modvat credit. The appellants had deposited the duty on clearances made during a specific period when they were denied the SSI exemption for using another person's brand name on their goods. The Tribunal considered the contention that the appellants should be allowed to avail Modvat credit on the duty paid inputs used in manufacturing the goods for which full duty was paid. The learned JDR supported the impugned order, while the Counsel argued in favor of granting Modvat credit. The Tribunal agreed with the Counsel's argument, stating that since the appellants were denied the SSI benefit and paid full duty, they were entitled to claim Modvat credit on the duty paid inputs. Consequently, the impugned order confirming duty, interest, and penalty was upheld, but the appellants were allowed to claim Modvat credit as per the law.In the judgment, the Tribunal noted that the entire duty amount had already been deposited by the appellants, amounting to Rs. 3,79,808. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of the entire penalty of Rs. 20,000 and stayed the recovery until the appeal's disposal. The learned Counsel highlighted the brevity of the issue involved, suggesting a quick disposal of the appeal, which was accepted by the Tribunal after reviewing the records.The key contention revolved around the denial of SSI exemption to the appellants for using another person's brand name on their goods during a specific period. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants had paid duty at the full rate on the clearances made during this period. The Counsel argued that the appellants should be allowed to avail Modvat credit on the duty paid inputs used in manufacturing the goods for which they paid full duty. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing that since the SSI benefit was denied and full duty was paid, the appellants were entitled to claim Modvat credit on the duty paid inputs, leading to a modification of the impugned order.The judgment highlighted the opposing views presented by the learned Counsel and the JDR regarding the appellants' entitlement to Modvat credit. While the JDR supported the impugned order, the Counsel successfully argued for the appellants' right to claim Modvat credit based on the duty paid inputs used in manufacturing the goods for which full duty was paid. The Tribunal agreed with the Counsel's perspective, ultimately allowing the appellants to avail Modvat credit despite maintaining the confirmation of duty, interest, and penalty as per the impugned order.