Spent capital goods are not manufacture for excise duty, and Modvat reversal must follow depreciated value rules.

Spent DEHPA cleared after use as capital goods was treated as an unserviceable residue, not a new excisable product; central excise duty, related penalty and confiscation were therefore unsustainable. Where Modvat credit had been availed on capital goods removed from the factory, the reversal had to be computed on depreciated value under the governing rules, so the earlier proportionate computation was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh redetermination. Vehicle confiscation could not be maintained where the driver had been exonerated of penalty on the facts found, because the basis for confiscation was absent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether spent DEHPA removed from the factory was a manufactured excisable product liable to central excise duty, with consequential penalty and confiscation. (ii) Whether the Modvat credit attributable to the capital goods removed from the factory had to be reversed on depreciated value and required redetermination. (iii) Whether confiscation of the vehicle could be sustained when the driver had been exonerated of penalty.

Issue (i): Whether spent DEHPA removed from the factory was a manufactured excisable product liable to central excise duty, with consequential penalty and confiscation.

Analysis: The material had been imported and used as a capital goods item in the electrolysis process. Its conversion into spent DEHPA did not amount to manufacture of a new excisable commodity. The reasoning treated the item as capital goods that had become unserviceable through use, and not as a manufactured product emerging from a process attracting duty. Once duty was not payable on clearance of the spent material, the foundation for invoking penalty and confiscation also failed.

Conclusion: The demand of central excise duty on spent DEHPA, and the connected penalties and confiscation based on alleged excisable manufacture, were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Modvat credit attributable to the capital goods removed from the factory had to be reversed on depreciated value and required redetermination.

Analysis: Credit reversal was necessary where capital goods on which credit had been availed were removed from the factory, but the reversal had to be worked out on depreciated value in accordance with the rules. The proportionate reversal ordered on the basis of prime quality material was therefore not accepted. The quantum of credit to be reversed had to be freshly determined on the facts, and any penalty, if warranted, could be considered only after such redetermination.

Conclusion: The credit issue was remitted to the original authority for redetermination on the basis of depreciated capital goods, in favour of the assessee to the extent that the earlier computation was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation of the vehicle could be sustained when the driver had been exonerated of penalty.

Analysis: The vehicle was linked to alleged clandestine removal, but the driver had not been found liable under Rule 209A. In those circumstances, the basis for treating the vehicle as liable to confiscation was absent. The confiscation could not stand where the person in charge had been exonerated of culpability on the facts found.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the vehicle was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the main duty demand and confiscation issues, while the Modvat credit aspect was sent back for fresh computation on the correct depreciated basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Clearance of spent capital goods that do not emerge as a new excisable product is not manufacture attracting central excise duty, and credit reversal on removal of capital goods must be computed on depreciated value in accordance with the governing rules.

---