1995 (10) TMI 91 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Refers Modvat Credit Denial Issue to High Court for Clarification

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's reference applications, referring questions to the High Court regarding the denial of Modvat credit for interplant ... Reference Applications - Modvat credit Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Rule 57C vis-a-vis Rule 57D in the context of Notification 217/86 as amended by Notification 97/89.2. Whether Modvat credit of duty paid on basic inputs can be allowed for interplant removals of intermediate inputs.3. Applicability of the larger Bench decision in Kirloskar Oil Engines case.4. Whether the Tribunal's interpretation of the Modvat scheme and related notifications was correct.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Rule 57C vis-a-vis Rule 57D in the context of Notification 217/86 as amended by Notification 97/89:The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Rule 57C and Rule 57D in the context of Notification 217/86, which exempts goods manufactured in a factory and used captively in the further manufacture of final products. The Tribunal noted that Notification 217/86, prior to its amendment, confined the exemption to products used captively within the same factory. The amendment by Notification 97/89 extended this exemption to interplant removals, provided they are under bond and used in the manufacture of dutiable final products in another factory of the same manufacturer. The Tribunal held that the notification aims to avoid unnecessary payment of duty at intermediate stages, aligning with the Modvat scheme's objective to avert cascading taxation effects.2. Whether Modvat credit of duty paid on basic inputs can be allowed for interplant removals of intermediate inputs:The Tribunal examined whether Modvat credit on basic inputs should be denied when intermediate inputs are transferred between units of the same manufacturer under Notification 217/86. The Revenue contended that Rule 57C should apply, denying credit as the intermediate inputs are exempted when moved between plants. However, the Tribunal held that as long as the ultimate final product is cleared on payment of duty, denying Modvat credit would be unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification and the Modvat scheme aim to ensure that duty is paid only at the final stage, and intermediate inputs should not be treated as final products for the purpose of Rule 57C.3. Applicability of the larger Bench decision in Kirloskar Oil Engines case:The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Kirloskar Oil Engines case, which involved Notification 217/85. The Tribunal noted that Notification 217/85 grants complete exemption to parts of IC engines used in the manufacture of IC engines, irrespective of whether they are used within the same factory or another factory. This notification is not based on the Modvat scheme and aims to remit duty on parts of IC engines entirely. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the decision in Kirloskar Oil Engines does not apply to the present case, which is governed by Notification 217/86, based entirely on the Modvat scheme.4. Whether the Tribunal's interpretation of the Modvat scheme and related notifications was correct:The Tribunal justified its interpretation by emphasizing the Modvat scheme's benevolent nature, designed to avoid cascading taxation and ensure duty is paid only at the final stage. The Tribunal cited Lord Denning's principle, approved by the Supreme Court, that ambiguities in beneficial schemes should be resolved to ensure the scheme's substantive benefits are realized. The Tribunal also referred to various judgments supporting the view that substantial compliance with the Modvat scheme should not be denied on technical grounds. The Tribunal concluded that denying Modvat credit for interplant removals under Notification 217/86 would create an anomaly and contradict the scheme's purpose.Separate Judgments:The Tribunal noted that the North Regional Bench of the Tribunal had taken a prima facie view disagreeing with the Tribunal's interpretation in the present case. The North Regional Bench did not approve the reliance on Lord Denning's observations and felt that the Supreme Court decisions cited were distinguishable. The Tribunal acknowledged that the final interpretation of the legal point rests with the High Court and agreed to refer the matter to the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excises Act.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the reference applications from the Revenue, framing the following questions for the High Court's consideration:1. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that Modvat credit of duty paid on basic inputs used in intermediate products cannot be denied by applying Rule 57C in respect of interplant removals under Notification 217/86 as amended by Notification 97/89.2. Whether Rule 57C should be strictly construed, disregarding the fact that Notification 217/86 is based on the Modvat scheme and the amendment was to facilitate such removals without payment of duty, ensuring the ultimate final products pay duty.3. Whether removals under Notification 217/85 can be construed as analogous to removals of intermediate inputs under Notification 217/86 for applying the ratio of the larger Bench decision in Kirloskar Oil Engines.The Tribunal set a date for finalizing the draft and the questions of law to be referred to the High Court.