1999 (2) TMI 204 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of stainless steel manufacturer in duty credit recovery case

MUKAND LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III

MUKAND LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 403 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Whether the processes of annealing and pickling amount to manufacture for availing Modvat credit.2. Whether the extended period for recovery of duty applies due to misdeclaration or suppression of facts.3. Whether penalties are justified under Rule 229A.Analysis:1. The appellant, a manufacturer of stainless steel wire rods, subjected the rods to annealing and pickling at a different factory before export. The Commissioner sought to recover duty taken as credit, alleging these processes did not amount to manufacture. The appellant argued that the processes changed the metal's structure, enhancing its properties. The Tribunal noted conflicting views on whether these processes constitute manufacture, citing technical evidence and previous decisions. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the processes did not create a new commodity, supporting the Commissioner's decision based on the Supreme Court's judgment.2. The Commissioner invoked the extended period for duty recovery, alleging misdeclaration. The appellant contended that its declarations clearly stated the processes undertaken and intended credit usage. The Tribunal emphasized that for the extended period to apply, there must be willful misstatement, collusion, or suppression of facts. It referenced Supreme Court precedent, highlighting the need for conscious and deliberate acts to trigger the extended period. The Tribunal found the appellant had not concealed information and had disclosed the processes, thus rejecting the extended recovery period.3. Regarding penalties under Rule 229A, the Commissioner imposed penalties based on the alleged misdeclaration. The Tribunal, however, found no deliberate intention to evade duty, emphasizing the complexity of determining whether a process amounts to manufacture. It referenced a relevant court decision, stating that if a process transforms a product significantly, it constitutes manufacture. The Tribunal concluded that as the extended recovery period did not apply, penalties were unjustified. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, ruling in favor of the appellant.