1995 (12) TMI 72 - SC - Central Excise

Manufacturer entitled to MODVAT credit for duty-paid inputs; debit entries before removal not deemed credit under Rule 57A

CHANDRAPUR MAGNET WIRES (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, NAGPUR

SC held that a manufacturer who clears final products using duty-paid inputs is entitled to MODVAT credit for excise duty on those inputs. The Court found ... MODVAT scheme - Whether if a manufacturer clears various final products utilising duty paid inputs, according to Central Excise Rules, he was entitled to the benefit of MODVAT scheme and was entitled to get credit for the duty of excise paid on the inputs which were utilised for manufacture of final product?​​​​​​​ - Held that:- The case of the appellants is that if a manufacturer clears various final products utilising duty paid inputs, according to Central Excise Rules, he was entitled to the benefit of MODVAT scheme and was entitled to get credit for the duty of excise paid on the inputs which were utilised for manufacture of final product. The credit amounts were adjusted against the duty leviable on the final product. As soon as the inputs were purchased, the duty paid on the inputs were entered in a register which had to be maintained statutorily recording the amount of credit allowable to the manufacturer. No reason why the assessee cannot make a debit entry in the credit account before removal of the exempted final product. If this debit entry is permissible to be made, credit entry for the duties paid on the inputs utilised in manufacture of the final exempted product will stand deleted in the accounts of the assessee. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the final exempted product under Rule 57A. In other words, the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in manufacture of these goods. In favour of assessee. Issues:- Interpretation of MODVAT scheme under Central Excise Rules- Reversal of credit entries for duty-free goods- Maintenance of separate accounts for dutiable and duty-free goodsAnalysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of enamelled copper winding wire from duty paid copper wire bars. They send the copper wire bars for job work under Rule 57F(2) for converting them into copper wires above 6 mm diameter. The appellants manufacture various final products of copper, including enamelled copper winding wires. They avail credit of duty paid on copper wires of above 6 mm received from job workers. The issue arose when some goods manufactured by the appellants were exempted from duty by Notification No. 69/86-C.E. The Excise Department contended that reversal of credit entries for duty-free goods was not permitted by the rules.The Excise Department argued that the assessee cannot remove the copper wires without payment of duty since credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of copper wire had already been taken in accordance with Rule 57A. The Department highlighted that the assessee had not maintained separate accounts for dutiable and duty-free goods as required. However, a departmental circular clarified that in cases where it is not reasonably possible to segregate inputs, the manufacturer may take credit of duty paid on all inputs used in the manufacture of final products, provided that credit of duty paid on inputs used in exempted products is debited before the removal of such exempted final products.The Supreme Court analyzed the circular and held that if a debit entry is permissible to be made before the removal of the exempted final product, the credit entry for duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the final exempted product will stand deleted in the accounts of the assessee. Therefore, the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of these goods. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order of the Tribunal was set aside with no costs imposed.