Modvat credit on inter-factory transfers upheld where final duty was paid and Rule 57C could not defeat the scheme.

Modvat credit on inputs used in an intermediate product could not be denied under Rule 57C where the goods were transferred between units of the same manufacturer under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. and Chapter X procedure, and duty was ultimately paid on the final product. The Court held that Rule 57C must be read consistently with the Modvat scheme and exemption notification, and not applied mechanically to defeat their object. It also distinguished the Tribunal ruling in Kirloskar Oil Engines on the facts, finding it inapplicable to this inter-factory transfer arrangement. The reference was disposed of in favour of the assessee, and credit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit on inputs used in an intermediate product could be denied by applying Rule 57C when the intermediate product was moved from one factory to another under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. and Chapter X procedure, with duty being paid on the ultimate final product; (ii) Whether Rule 57C was required to be strictly construed so as to defeat the Modvat-based scheme underlying Notification No. 217/86-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 97/89-C.E.; (iii) Whether the ratio of the Tribunal decision in Kirloskar Oil Engines was applicable to the removal of intermediate inputs in the present factual setting.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit on inputs used in an intermediate product could be denied by applying Rule 57C when the intermediate product was moved from one factory to another under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. and Chapter X procedure, with duty being paid on the ultimate final product.

Analysis: Notification No. 217/86-C.E. was treated as part of the Modvat framework and as intended to avoid duty at intermediate stages where the same manufacturer used the goods captively in further manufacture. The Court accepted that when intermediate goods are moved to another unit of the same manufacturer under the prescribed procedure and duty is ultimately discharged on the final product, the underlying scheme is not defeated by insisting on reversal of credit at the intermediate stage. Rule 57C was held not to operate mechanically so as to nullify the benefit conferred by the notification and the Modvat scheme.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative. Modvat credit could not be denied, and the decision was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 57C was required to be strictly construed so as to defeat the Modvat-based scheme underlying Notification No. 217/86-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 97/89-C.E.

Analysis: The Court held that the notification was designed to facilitate movement of goods between units of the same manufacturer without duty at the intermediate stage, provided duty was ensured on the final product. In that setting, Rule 57C had to be read consistently with the scheme and object of the exemption notification. A rigid construction that destroyed the practical working of the Modvat arrangement was rejected.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative. Rule 57C was not to be strictly construed in the manner suggested by the Revenue, and the conclusion favoured the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the ratio of the Tribunal decision in Kirloskar Oil Engines was applicable to the removal of intermediate inputs in the present factual setting.

Analysis: The Court distinguished the cited Tribunal decision on facts. It noted that the earlier case involved clearance of parts under a different factual matrix and not the same situation of transfer between factories of the same manufacturer followed by duty payment on the final product. As the material facts were not comparable, the precedent did not govern the present reference.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative. The cited ratio was held inapplicable, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by upholding the availability of Modvat credit on the inputs used in the intermediate product where the goods were transferred between units of the same manufacturer under the prescribed exemption procedure and final duty liability was discharged at the end stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where intermediate goods are transferred between units of the same manufacturer under an exemption scheme that ensures duty on the final product, Modvat credit on the original inputs cannot be denied by a mechanical application of Rule 57C if such denial would defeat the object of the scheme.

---