1997 (11) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the appellant were not exempted from payment of duty and were being cleared on payment of duty leviable. All five types of tractors had a number of inputs which were common. The appellant took credit of the duty paid on these inputs when they were received in its factory. As and when the exempted varieties of tractors were cleared, it made entries in its Modvat account debiting the credit taken of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of such tractors. Subsequently it filed claims for refund of duty the credit of which it reversed. These claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, who held that, since the final product in which the inputs were utilised were cleared without payment of duty the appellant could not have taken ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ttled law that statute should be interpreted as a whole and that by reading the provisions of Rule 57C in conjunction with the provisions of Rule 57F. 3. Rule 57C provides that no credit of the specified duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product (other than those cleared either to a unit in a Free Trade Zone or 100% export oriented) would be available if the final product is exempted from the whole of the duty or charged to nil rate of duty. The provisions of Rule 57C are clear. We are not concerned in this appeal with the significance of the term "nil rate of duty". There is no dispute that the final product i.e. tractor below 1800 capacity was exempted from duty. Therefore, it is clear that credit could be ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ff heading, they must be considered to be one. The same heading may specify a number of items, and mere inclusion in the tariff heading does not alter the identity of a product. It is argued that the final product was one, in that the only difference between the exempted variety and the unexempted variety was the difference in the engine capacity and other differences in size and power arising therefrom. There is like saying that since a car, truck, tractor and motor cycle are all motor vehicles, they must be considered to be one product. A tractor of a specified capacity is commercially a product distinct and different from other tractors. If the appellant were manufacturing one variety of tractors, the exempted tractor, there is no disput....