Distinct treatment of charged and uncharged batteries upheld for Modvat procedure, supporting waiver of predeposit and stay.

Charged and uncharged batteries were treated as distinct articles for the limited purpose of the Modvat procedure, because a buyer ordering a charged battery was prima facie purchasing a different article even though an uncharged battery is a complete product in classification terms. The Tribunal also observed that, if Rule 57F(4) was unavailable, no debit was required when goods were sent out for charging, and any debit already made could be cancelled. On that basis, the appellant established a strong prima facie case and obtained waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether charged batteries and uncharged batteries are distinct articles for the purpose of Rule 57F and whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that, although an uncharged battery is a complete product in classification terms, a buyer placing an order for a charged battery is prima facie purchasing a different article. On that basis, charged and uncharged batteries were treated as distinct for the limited purpose of the Modvat procedure. The Tribunal further observed that, even if Rule 57F(4) was not available, no debit was required to be made when the goods were sent out for charging, and the debit already made could therefore be cancelled.

Conclusion: The appellant made out a strong prima facie case and was entitled to waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery.

---