1993 (12) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Proforma Credit for Seamless Pipes, Time-Barred Notice Dismissed

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA Versus INDIAN TUBE CO.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, and upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals). The respondents were deemed ... Demand - Limitation Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for proforma credit under Rule 56A for waste and scrap.2. Classification of waste and scrap under different Tariff Items.3. Validity of the show cause notice concerning time-bar and limitation.4. Interpretation of Rule 56A(3)(iv) regarding the method of duty payment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Proforma Credit Under Rule 56A for Waste and Scrap:The core issue revolves around whether the respondents, The Indian Tube Co., are entitled to proforma credit under Rule 56A for waste and scrap (Bell Ends, Front Ends, Turnings, and Borings) arising during the manufacture of Seamless Pipes and Tubes. The Assistant Collector initially denied this benefit, arguing that the scrap fell under Tariff Item 26, while the raw materials (steel bars and blooms) fell under Tariff Item 26AA(i). The Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision, stating that since the scrap arose incidentally during the manufacturing process, denying credit would be unfair. The Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)' decision, emphasizing that waste products are finished excisable goods and thus eligible for proforma credit.2. Classification of Waste and Scrap Under Different Tariff Items:The dispute also involved the classification of the waste and scrap. The Assistant Collector classified the waste under Tariff Item 26, whereas the respondents claimed it should be under Item 26AA. The Collector (Appeals) acknowledged the Assistant Collector's classification but still allowed the credit, considering the waste as an incidental product. The Tribunal noted that the classification under Item 26 was not challenged by the respondents, thus supporting the Assistant Collector's classification. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the respondents' claim for classification under Item 26AA was not substantiated by the Department's records.3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Concerning Time-bar and Limitation:The respondents raised a plea of limitation, arguing that the show cause notice was issued beyond the permissible period. The Department contended that the notice was within the five-year limit due to wilful misstatement by the respondents. The Tribunal found no evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the respondents and concluded that the longer period beyond six months was not applicable. Consequently, the notice was deemed time-barred.4. Interpretation of Rule 56A(3)(iv) Regarding the Method of Duty Payment:Another contention was whether the duty on waste products should be paid through the Personal Ledger Account (PLA) and not by adjusting the proforma credit in the RG 23 Account. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that Rule 56A(3)(iv) does not explicitly require duty payment through cash or PLA. The Tribunal affirmed that the duty could be paid by adjusting the proforma credit, aligning with their earlier decision in a related case involving the same respondents.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, and upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal concluded that the respondents were entitled to proforma credit for the waste and scrap arising during the manufacture of Seamless Pipes and Tubes, and there was no legal basis to deny this benefit. The show cause notice was also found to be time-barred, and the method of duty payment through proforma credit adjustment was deemed valid.