1998 (7) TMI 222 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Modvat credit plea on packing material for exports partially allowed by tribunal

The appellant's plea for availing Modvat credit on duty paid on packing material used for exports was initially rejected by the Commissioner but ... Modvat - Packing material used for packing of phosphoric acid on exports Issues:1. Availing Modvat credit on duty paid on packing material used for exports.2. Eligibility of Modvat credit for goods exported under bond without payment of duty.Issue 1: Availing Modvat credit on duty paid on packing material used for exports:The appeal arose from the rejection of the appellant's plea for availing Modvat credit on duty paid on packing material used for exports. The Commissioner rejected the plea based on Rule 57A(1)(b)(iii), stating that the cost of packing material not included in the assessable value of final products during the preceding year would not be eligible for Modvat credit. However, the appellate tribunal found the Commissioner's reasoning incorrect. They referred to a departmental clarification stating that for new units without clearances in the previous financial year, credit for packing materials would be available if the cost is included in the assessable value. The tribunal concluded that in cases where there were no clearances in the preceding year, the requirement to include the cost of materials from that year does not apply. Since there was no dispute that the inputs had suffered duty, the Commissioner's finding was negated on this count.Issue 2: Eligibility of Modvat credit for goods exported under bond without payment of duty:The Commissioner's rejection of Modvat credit was also based on the ground that the goods were exported under bond without payment of duty. The tribunal noted that Modvat credit is eligible only for final goods that have suffered duty. The appellant cited a trade notice clarifying the availing of Modvat credit for small scale units under certain conditions, but it was determined that the appellant was not a small scale unit and thus not eligible for this benefit. Additionally, the tribunal highlighted a trade notice granting a refund of specified duty for inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods cleared under export bond, but this case involved the reversal of Modvat credit, not a refund. As the appellant did not claim a refund under this notification, the plea was required to be negatived. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the ground that Modvat credit for inputs used for goods exported under bond without payment of duty was not eligible, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.This judgment clarifies the interpretation of rules regarding the availing of Modvat credit on duty paid packing material for exports and the eligibility of Modvat credit for goods exported under bond without payment of duty. The tribunal emphasized the importance of departmental clarifications and trade notices in determining the eligibility criteria for Modvat credit, ultimately upholding the decision that the appellant was not entitled to the credit in the circumstances presented.