Recovery under Rule 57CC failed without an effective machinery provision for exported or nil-rated final products.

Amounts alleged to be payable under Rule 57CC or similar reversal provisions could not be recovered for exported, exempt, or nil-rated final products where the statute and rules lacked an effective machinery for recovery. The Tribunal followed Pushpaman Forgings and related precedent, holding that even if a short payment was assumed, the department had no enforceable mechanism to recover the percentage-based amount worked out on common inputs. The demand and penalties were therefore unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount alleged to be payable or short-paid under Rule 57CC or allied provisions could be recovered from the assessee in respect of exported or nil-rated final products, especially when the statute and rules did not contain an effective machinery for such recovery.

Analysis: The appeals turned on the applicability of Rule 57CC and the recoverability of amounts worked out as a percentage of the value of the final product where common inputs were used. The Tribunal applied the earlier decision in Pushpaman Forgings and the connected reasoning followed in the cited precedent, holding that even if a short payment was assumed, the department could not recover the alleged amount in the absence of a proper machinery provision. The same reasoning was applied to the cases involving export of pump sets and the cases where the authority attempted to recover 8% of the value of exempt or nil-rated final products.

Conclusion: The demand and penalties could not be sustained and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An amount alleged to be payable under Rule 57CC or similar reversal provisions cannot be recovered without a supporting machinery provision, particularly where the issue relates to exported or exempt final products.

---