Modvat credit on exempt intermediate goods protected for dutiable final products; blanket reversal and penalty were set aside.

Penal action for storing exempt intermediate goods outside the factory was unsustainable because the arrangement had been covered by departmental permission, supported by long-standing acquiescence, and the goods moved under challans; the penalty was set aside. Modvat credit on inputs used in glass shells could not be denied merely because the shells were intermediate exempt goods where they fed into dutiable final products, as Rule 57D(2) protected such credit. However, credit attributable to exempt final clearances remained reversible to that limited extent, so the blanket reversal was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh quantification of any reversible portion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty could be sustained for storing exempt intermediate goods outside the factory premises under the department's earlier permission and long-standing departmental knowledge; (ii) Whether Modvat credit was required to be reversed in respect of inputs used in glass shells when the shells were intermediate products used for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt final products.

Issue (i): Whether penalty could be sustained for storing exempt intermediate goods outside the factory premises under the department's earlier permission and long-standing departmental knowledge.

Analysis: The permission obtained from the department related to storage of duty-paid goods, yet the record showed that the assessee had used the arrangement for glass shells as well. The departmental record also indicated continued movement of the goods under challans and prolonged departmental acquiescence. On those facts, the removal could not be characterised as a contravention warranting penal action.

Conclusion: Penalty was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit was required to be reversed in respect of inputs used in glass shells when the shells were intermediate products used for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt final products.

Analysis: Rule 57C did not require reversal where the inputs were used in the manufacture of an intermediate product that was itself used in the manufacture of dutiable final products, because Rule 57D(2) protected such credit. At the same time, the record suggested that some final products were cleared under exemption, in which event reversal would be warranted to that limited extent. The exact quantum therefore needed factual re-determination by the jurisdictional authority.

Conclusion: The blanket reversal of credit was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh quantification of the reversible portion, if any.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on penalty and on rejection of the entire credit demand, but the issue of the precise Modvat reversal liability was left for fresh determination by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where inputs are used in an intermediate product that feeds into dutiable final products, Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the intermediate product is exempt, and penal consequences cannot be sustained when the department has knowingly acquiesced in the manner of storage and clearance.

---