Modvat credit on returned duty-paid goods was upheld despite non-compliance with the Section 173H identification procedure.

CEGAT, Mumbai held that Modvat credit remained admissible on duty-paid goods returned by customers for reprocessing where the goods were declared in the Rule 57G declaration and used as inputs in manufacture. Non-compliance with the Section 173H identification procedure did not by itself justify denial of credit when the returned material was reprocessed in bulk for technological and economic reasons, and the issue had already been decided in the assessee's favour in its own case. The assessee therefore succeeded and the credit claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit was admissible on duty-paid goods returned by customers for reprocessing, notwithstanding non-compliance with the identification requirement under Section 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, when the goods were declared in the Rule 57G declaration and used as inputs in manufacture.

Analysis: The dispute concerned duty-paid goods cleared to customers and later returned as not meeting contractual requirements. The assessee did not follow the identification procedure under Section 173H because the returned material was to be reprocessed in large quantities and mixed with other material for technological and economic reasons. The Tribunal noted that the same issue in the assessee's own case had already been decided in its favour.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was held admissible and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where returned duty-paid goods are declared as inputs and are used in manufacture after reprocessing, credit cannot be denied merely because the identification procedure under Section 173H is not followed, if the issue is otherwise covered by precedent in the assessee's favour.

---