Intermediate product exemption does not save Modvat credit when the product is outside the specified inputs scheme.

Carded or combed cotton was recognised as an intermediate product arising in the continuous manufacture of cotton-viscose blended yarn, even though the final product remained classifiable as cotton yarn. However, Modvat credit on viscose staple fibre was denied because the relevant intermediate product, though exempt from duty, was not specified under Rule 57A during the material period. The text states that Rule 57D relief applies only where the intermediate product falls within the specified inputs scheme, so the assessee could not retain the credit and the denial was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether carded or combed cotton comes into existence in the process of manufacture of cotton-viscose blended yarn. (ii) Whether Modvat credit on viscose staple fibre is admissible when the intermediate product is exempt but not specified under Rule 57A.

Issue (i): Whether carded or combed cotton comes into existence in the process of manufacture of cotton-viscose blended yarn.

Analysis: The manufacture was found to be a continuous process in which fibre underwent stages such as blowing and carding before spinning into yarn. Technical material and dictionary meaning supported the conclusion that carded or combed cotton is a recognised intermediate stage in the manufacture of yarn. Since cotton predominated for classification, the product remained cotton yarn, but that did not prevent carded or combed cotton from coming into existence during the process.

Conclusion: Carded or combed cotton does come into existence in the process of manufacture of cotton-viscose blended yarn.

Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit on viscose staple fibre is admissible when the intermediate product is exempt but not specified under Rule 57A.

Analysis: The benefit under Rule 57D applies only where the intermediate product is specified under Rule 57A. Although the intermediate product, namely carded or combed cotton, was liable to nil duty, it was not specified under Rule 57A during the relevant period. The proviso therefore barred the assessee from retaining credit taken on the input fibre.

Conclusion: Modvat credit on viscose staple fibre is not admissible.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the intermediate product, though exempt, was outside the scope of the specified inputs scheme, and the denial of credit was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit under Rule 57D is not available where the intermediate product, though exempt from duty, is not specified under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

---