Exemption notification amendment was not retrospective, but MODVAT credit could still be verified and adjusted despite procedural lapse.

Duty on bars and rods manufactured from duty-paid ingots was upheld for the period before the exemption notification amendment, because the later expansion to include ingots and similar inputs was not treated as applying to the earlier period. MODVAT credit on duty-paid ingots could not be denied merely because no Rule 57G declaration had been filed where the inputs were otherwise eligible in principle. The proper course was to verify the duty-paid character of the ingots and adjust any admissible credit against the demand, so the matter was remanded for that limited exercise.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty was correctly demanded for the period 1-3-1992 to 9-3-1992 on bars and rods manufactured from duty-paid ingots before the amendment of the exemption notification. (ii) Whether MODVAT credit on duty paid ingots could be denied for want of a declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the matters should be remanded for verification and adjustment of credit.

Issue (i): Whether duty was correctly demanded for the period 1-3-1992 to 9-3-1992 on bars and rods manufactured from duty-paid ingots before the amendment of the exemption notification.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 202/88 initially referred to re-rollable material of iron and steel other than stainless steel, and the later amendment by Notification No. 53/92-C.E. expanded the specified inputs to include ingots, bars, rods and other rollable or re-rollable material. The plea that the amendment merely cured an omission was not accepted, as there were no clear words showing that ingots were covered for the earlier period. On that footing, the duty demand for the disputed period was upheld.

Conclusion: The duty liability for 1-3-1992 to 9-3-1992 was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether MODVAT credit on duty paid ingots could be denied for want of a declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the matters should be remanded for verification and adjustment of credit.

Analysis: Ingots and bars and rods were specified inputs under Notification No. 77/86 issued under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so credit of duty paid on ingots used in manufacture of bars and rods was available in principle. The failure to file a declaration on the footing of an erroneous claim to exemption did not justify denial of credit. The proper course was to verify the duty-paid character of the ingots and adjust the demanded duty against admissible MODVAT credit.

Conclusion: MODVAT credit could not be denied merely for the procedural lapse, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification and adjustment of credit.

Final Conclusion: The substantive duty demand was sustained, but the assessee was entitled to have admissible MODVAT credit verified and adjusted, so the matters were sent back for that limited purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural default in claiming MODVAT credit does not by itself defeat otherwise admissible credit on duty-paid inputs, and where the entitlement depends on verification, the proper course is remand for such verification and adjustment.

---