Excise credit on capital goods, limitation, and substituted-rule proceedings all failed, leaving the demand unsustainable.

Under the excise credit rules, input duty credit was held usable for duty on capital goods cleared as such because the statutory fiction treated such removal as clearance of deemed manufactured goods, and the relevant proviso covered that debit; the demand on that basis was not sustainable. The demand was also time-barred because wilful misstatement or suppression of facts was not established, so extended limitation and penalty could not be invoked. Proceedings initiated under a rule that had been substituted without any saving clause were held not maintainable. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether credit of duty on inputs could be utilised for payment of duty on capital goods cleared as such from the factory under the relevant excise rules; (ii) Whether the demand and penalty were sustainable in the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; (iii) Whether proceedings initiated under the substituted rule could survive after substitution without a saving clause.

Issue (i): Whether credit of duty on inputs could be utilised for payment of duty on capital goods cleared as such from the factory under the relevant excise rules.

Analysis: Removal of capital goods under Rule 57S(1) was treated as removal of goods deemed to have been manufactured in the factory. On that legal fiction, the proviso to Rule 57F(12) permitting utilisation of credit of specified duty on inputs towards duty on any other final product was held to cover such clearance. The debits made in the RG 23A Part II account were therefore justified.

Conclusion: The utilisation of input credit for payment of duty on the capital goods was valid and the demand on that basis was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand and penalty were sustainable in the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Analysis: The demand was held to be time-barred because the record did not establish wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. In the absence of the requisite ingredients for extended limitation, penalty also could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the penalty was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether proceedings initiated under the substituted rule could survive after substitution without a saving clause.

Analysis: The proceedings were held to be unsustainable because the show cause notice invoked a rule that had been substituted with effect from 1 April 2000 without any saving clause, and the cited precedents supported that view.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the substituted rule were not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory fiction deems removed capital goods to be manufactured goods and the credit rules permit utilisation of input credit for duty on other final products, such credit may be used for duty on those capital goods; absent wilful suppression, extended limitation and penalty cannot be invoked, and proceedings under a substituted rule without a saving clause are not maintainable.

---