Compounded levy scheme excludes Modvat credit and validates demand and special rules for embroidery manufacturers.

A special compounded levy scheme for embroidery manufacturers who opt into Rule 96ZH validly excludes Modvat credit on capital goods, because the amended proviso expressly bars credit under Rules 57A, 57B and 57Q for inputs and capital goods used for embroidery. The demand was not time-barred under Section 11A, as the show cause notice was issued within the statutory period and limitation ran from the due date for filing the monthly return. Rules 96ZH to 96ZM were held intra vires, since they form a valid special procedure for assessment and collection under the parent Act rather than an impermissible levy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a manufacturer opting to pay duty under Rule 96ZH of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could also avail Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iii) Whether Rules 96ZH to 96ZM of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were ultra vires the parent Act.

Issue (i): Whether a manufacturer opting to pay duty under Rule 96ZH of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could also avail Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The proviso to Rule 96ZH, as amended by Notification No. 15/98, expressly barred credit under Rules 57A, 57B and 57Q in respect of inputs and capital goods used for embroidery. The earlier decision in United Leasing & Industries Ltd. was followed as the governing view on the compounded levy arrangement applicable to embroidery manufacturers.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to avail Modvat credit on capital goods while operating under Rule 96ZH.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The show cause notice covered clearances from September 1998 to February 1999 and was issued on 11-3-1999, within the statutory period. The demand related to clearance without discharge of duty, and the limitation period was held to run from the due date for filing the monthly return.

Conclusion: The demand was within limitation and the plea of time bar failed.

Issue (iii): Whether Rules 96ZH to 96ZM of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were ultra vires the parent Act.

Analysis: The scheme under Rules 96ZH to 96ZM was introduced under Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for a special procedure in embroidery cases, and its operation was optional upon an application being granted. Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held to authorize levy and collection in the prescribed manner, and the rules were treated as a valid mechanism for assessment and collection rather than an impermissible levy.

Conclusion: The rules were not ultra vires the Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive grounds and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special compounded levy scheme expressly excludes Modvat credit and is voluntarily opted into, the exclusion is binding, the demand is not barred if raised within the statutory period, and procedural rules made under the parent Act for levy and collection are valid if they operate within the statutory framework.

---