1.These are three appeals filed by M/s Shivagrico Implements Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SIL'), being aggrieved with the two separate orders-in-appeal, both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. The issue for consideration in all these three appeals is, whether the benefit of modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997 (as amended) could be availed of in respect of the duty paid inputs captively consumed in the manufacture of dutiable specified final products, in a case where the central excise duty on the inputs had been paid under Section 3-A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. M/s SIL were availing of the benefit of modvat credit in respect of re-rolled non-alloy steel products, bars, flats, angles etc.
classifiable under sub-heading no. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, manutactured in their re-rolling mills, when used in the manufacture of their final products -agricultural implements i.e.
pickaxe, pawarah, railway beaters etc., classifiable under Chapters 82 and 84 of the Central Excise Tariff, in their forging division. They had filed declaration for availing of the benefit of modvat credit in respect of the above inputs and final products on 17.3.1994. with effect from 1.8.1997 Section 3-A was inserted by Section 81 of the Finance Act, 1997 (26 of 1997), providing for charging excise duty on the basis of the capacity of production in respect of the hot re-rolled products. The benefit of the deemed modvat credit @ 12% of the price of the inputs available under Notification No. 58/97-CE was sought to be denied by the Department to M/s SIL on the ground that they did not fulfil the conditions subject to which the benefit of deemed modvat credit was available under the aforesaid notification. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) took a view that the aforesaid Notification for availment of the benefit of deemed modvat credit envisaged two separate individual manufacturers - one for the manufacture of inputs and the other for the manufacture of final products, and thus the benefit of this exemption was not available when the inputs were captively used in the manufacture of dutiable final products.
3. The matter was heard on 19.3.2001 when Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, submitted that the inputs and the final products in the case of the appellants were covered by separate headings in the Central Excise Tariff and were separately dutiable. The appellants had filed proper declaration and this fact has been admitted by the appellate authority.
The inputs were manufactured in the re-rolling mill with a furnace, and on payment of compounded levy were removed to the forging division. For central excise purposes, it was a removal of excisable goods. The inputs were cleared on the strength of invoices, and the price was the same which was charged from the outside buyers. He referred to the provisions of Rule 57-A and Rule 57-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). It was pleaded that as requisite formalities had been complied with, there was no ground for denying them the benefit of Notification No. 58/97-CE. In support of his contentions, the learned advocate has relied on the following decisions -CCE vs Modern Food Indus. (India) Ltd., 1988 (37) ELT 294 (T) - Merely because no payment is made in cash or because there is book adjustment, it cannot be said that there is no sale. Book adjustment is also a form of payment.
(2) Duke & Sons vs CCE, Pune, 1999 (107) ELT 196 (T) - Transfer of goods from appellants' one factory to another was a transaction of sale.Prakash Fabricators & Valvanizers Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, 1994 (74) ELT 961 (T) - Deemed credit was not deniable to a licensed/registered small scale manufacturer in respect of materials received otherwise than by was of purchase, or received on transfer on job work basis.Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs CCE, New Delhi, 2000 (118) ELT 43 (T-LB) - Retaining of raw material (Parts of car seats) by job worker for assembly of car seats will not disentitle the job worker to modvat credit merely because the raw material supplier and the job worker happens to be the same person.
(5) Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner, 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC) - Subsequent notification should not undo the benefit conferred under earlier notification.
The learned advocate submitted that a distinction has to be made between a procedural condition of a technical nature, and a substantive condition. While the non-observance of a procedural condition was condonable, the latter may not be so condonable. It was his submission that in the present case the condition for the violation of which the benefit of modvat credit had been denied to the appellants, was a procedural condition and the substantive benefit of modvat credit could not be denied on this ground alone.
In reply, Shri A.K. Jain, JDR, referred to the provisions of Notification NO. 58/97-CE and submitted that from the express and unambiguous language of the notification, it was clear that the same manufacturer who was manufacturing both the inputs and the final products was not covered by the scheme of modvat credit under this notification. It was his submission that the notification has to be construed strictly and that a correct view has been taken by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).
4. We have carefully considered the matter. The issue for our consideration is, whether the benefit of notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997, as amended by Notification NO. 2/98-CE dated 10.3.1998, could be extended when the specified inputs and the final products were manufactured by the same manufacturer in the same factory. Notification NO. 58/97-CE was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (6) of Rule 57-A of the Rules. Sub-rule (6) Rule 57-A was inserted in the Rules vide Notification No.44/97-CE(NT) dated 30.8.1997. Sub-rule (6) is extracted below - ^2[(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the inputs on which the duty of excise paid under section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), shall be deemed to have been paid at such rate or equivalent to such amount as may be specified in the said notification, and allow the credit of such duty in respect of the said inputs at such rate or such amount and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the said notification: Provided that the manufacturer shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs acquired by him are goods on which the appropriate duty of excise as indicated in the documents accompanying the goods, has been paid under section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944).] Section 3-A of the Act provided for charging excise duty on the basis of capacity of production in respect of the notified goods. This Section 3-A was inserted in the Act by Section 81 of the Finance Act, 1997 (26 of 1997). Under Notification NO. 31/97-CE(NT) dated 1.8.1997 (as amended) hot rolled products of non-alloy steel, falling under sub-heading no. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, manufactured or produced in a hot re-rolling steel mill, were covered by the scheme of charging excise duty on the basis of capacity of production under Section 3-A of the Act. The rate of excise duty on hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel, calculated on the basis of annual capacity of production determined under the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, was specified. Such specified duty calculated in the above manner was deemed to be the duty of excise leviable on such inputs under the Central Excise Tariff, by virtue of Explanation I under Section 3-A of the Act.
5. Under Notification No. 58/97-CE the inputs classifiable under sub-heading no. 7214.90, and the final products falling under any of the heading/sub-heading in the Tariff, were declared to be eligible inputs and eligible final products under sub-rule (6) of Rule 57-A. In other words, in terms of this Notification No. 58/97-CE, the inputs manufactured by M/s SIL on which the duty of excise had been paid under Section 3-A of the Act, were eligible inputs for allowing the credit of duty under Rule 57-A at such rate or equivalent to such amount as may be specified in the notification issued under sub-rule (6) of Rule 57-A, aforesaid. In para 2 of the aforesaid Notification No. 58/97-CE, it was declared that the duty of excise for the above purpose shall be deemed to have been paid on the said inputs @ 12% of the declared price in the invoice accompanying the said inputs, and the credit of such duty deemed to have been paid shall be allowable to the manufacturer of the final products. Full context of Notification NO. 58/97-CE is given below - Iron and steel -- Goods notified for purposes of credit of duty under Modvat. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (6) of rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government (sic) declares the following inputs and the final products falling within the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) namely :- Hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel falling underAll goods falling sub-heading Nos. 7211.11, 7211.19, 7211.30, 7211,52,within the said 7211.59, 7211.60, 7211.92, 7211.99, 7213.90, 7214.90,Schedule. 7215.90, 7216.10 and 7216.90 of the said Schedule and on which duty of excise has been paid under section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) 2. The Central Government further declares that they duty of excise under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as said Act), shall be deemed to have been paid (hereinafter referred to as deemed duty), on the inputs declared herein and the same shall be equivalent to the amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent of the price, as declared by the manufacturer, in the invoice accompanying the said inputs (hereinafter referred to as invoice price), and credit of the deemed duty so determined shall be allowed to the manufacturer of the final products.
3. The credit of deemed duty allowed in respect of the said inputs shall be (sie) only towards payment of duty of excise leviable under the said Central Excise Act on the said final products: Provided that the credit of deemed duty in respect of inputs cleared for export under bond shall be allowed to be utilised towards payment of duty of excise on any final products cleared for home consumption or for export on payment of duty and where for any reason such adjustment is not possible by refund to the manufacturer subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as may be specified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette.
Provided further that no such refund of credit of deemed duty shall be allowed if the manufacturer avails of drawback allowed under the Customs and Central Excise Duties (Drawback) Rules, 1971, or claims rebate of duty under rule 12 in respect of such duty.
4. The provisions of this notification shall apply to only those inputs which have been received directly by the manufacturer of the final products from the factory of the manufacturer of the said inputs under the cover of an invoice declaring that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid on such inputs under the provisions of section 3A of the said Act.
5. The provisions of this notification shall not apply to inputs where the manufacturer of the said inputs has not declared the invoice price of the said inputs correctly in the documents issued at the time of their clearance from his factory.
6. This notification shall come into effect on and from the 1st day of September, 1997.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this notification, 'invoice price" means the price charged by the manufacturer of inputs and indicated in the invoice accompanying the said inputs, the payment for which is made directly by the manufacturer of the final products to the manufacturer of the said inputs by cheque drawn on his own bank account or by bank draft or by bankers' cheque.
[Notification No. 58/97-C.E., dated 30-8-1997 as amended by Notification No. 2/98-C.E., dated 10-3-1998.] 6. Before the insertion of Section 3-A in the Act, M/s SIL were availing of the benefit of modvat credit for their inputs - re-rolled non-alloy steel products manufactured in their re-rolling mill, when used in the manufacture of their final products manufactured in their own forging division. They had filed a declaration on 17.3.1994. when the appellants started paying central excise duty under Section 3-A of the Act, the benefit of modvat credit was sought to be denied to them on the ground that the provisions of Notification NO. 58/97-CE envisaged two separate individual manufacturers - one for the manufacture of specified inputs, and the other for the final products.
The learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the notification NO. 58/97-CE did not apply to captive use. He held as under - So far as this issue is concerned, the submissions made by the appellant at the first blush appears to be convincing. However, one full and complete reading of the exemption notification, their argument can be controverted. The various clauses and conditions of the notification referred to above can not be read in isolation but have to be read in totality. The first condition has clearly specified that the goods have to be received directly by the manufacturer of the final products from the factory of the manufacturer of the said inputs. Thus, it clearly envisages two separate individual manufacturer. This is further confirmed on a reading of the explanation which stipulates the invoice price requires the payment to be made directly by the manufacturer of the final product to the manufacturer of the inputs. Thus, hear also 2 separate individual manufacturers are envisaged.
While interpretating the admissibility to a notfn. it has to be strictly interpretated and there is no scope of intentment. Words /expressions can not be read into it. The words clearly bear out that the exemption envisages two separate individual manufacturer and would not apply to captive use.. Consequently, the impugned order denying them the benefit of notfn. on this ground has correctly been passed and is upheld.7. From the express language in para 1 of the aforesaid Notification no. 58/97-CE, it is clear that under this Notification issued under sub-rule (6) of Rule 57-A of the Rules, the inputs classifiable under sub-heading No. 7214.90 were eligible inputs for the benefit of modvat credit. Such inputs were eligible for modvat credit, when they were used for the manufacture of any of the excisable goods falling under any of the headings in the Cental Excise Tariff. Duty under Section 3-A was leviable on the basis of capacity of production and had no relationship with the quantum of excisable goods manufactured.
Therefore, a deeming fiction was created in para 2 of the aforesaid Notification to the effect that the duty in such a case was deemed to have been paid on the inputs @ 12% of the declared price in the invoice of the manufacturer, and the credit of such deemed duty, so determined, was to be allowed to the manufacturer of the final products. In the present case, the duty had been paid on the inputs by M/s SIL. Those duty paid inputs had also been used by M/s SIL themselves. The question for consideration is, whether in such a case deeming fiction of calculating the rate of duty at 12% of the price and availment of credit of such deemed duty when such inputs were used by the same manufacturer in the manufacture of final products, was allowable or not. The view taken by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is that the benefit of such credit was not applicable to captive use.
8. On the face of it, it may appear incongrous as to how the same manufacturer could issue an invoice to his own self and take credit calculated on the basis of his own declared price of the inputs. This reading down of para 2 of the said Notification, however, has taken us to study the law relating to captive consumption, to study the implications on such manufacturers who were earlier availing of the benefit of modvat credit in similar circumstances when Section 3-A was not on the statute book, and the position of those who were manufacturing both the inputs and the final products themselves vis-a-vis those who were only manufacturing the inputs or those who were using duty paid inputs in the manufacture of their final products, when duty paid inputs were manufactured by other manufacturers.
9. We may first take up the matter regarding captive consumption. In the case of J.K. Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. vs UOI, 1987 (32) ELT 234 (SC), after referring to a number of decisions of various High Courts in the context of Rules 9 and 49 of the Rules, the Hon'ble Supreme court in para 22 observed as under - "It is manitestly clear from Rule 9 that it contemplates not only removal from the place where the excisable goods are produced, cured or manutactured or any premises appurtenant thereto, but also removal within such place or premises for captive consumption or home consumption, as it is called."Collector of Central Excise, Bombay vs Kohinoor Mills and Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1995 (52) ECC 83 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 had observed as under - "A conjoint reading of Rule 9(1) and Explanation makes it clear that if a manufactured item covered by the charge of excise duty by the charging provisions of the Central Excise Act is captively consumed, it would amount to removal of such manufactured item. Consequently once the yearn is manufactured in the spinning department of the composite textile mill and is taken to the weaving department for being captively utilised by way of consumption in weaving department, and gets consumed, it is deemed to have been removed with the meaning of Rule 9(1)." There is, therefore, no doubt that when one category of excisable goods are removed for consumption from one section of a factory to the another section of the same factory, it is a removal for the purposes of the excise law, and applicable rate of duty is leviable with regard to such removal for captive use.
10. It is an admitted position in the present case that prior to the introduction of Section 3-A of the Act, the appellants were availing of the modvat benefit with regard to their own manufactured inputs when used captively. As is clear from the language of Section 3-A, among other considerations for introducing the scheme of charging excise duty on the basis of capacity of production, the extent of evasion of duty in regard to the notified goods was the one such consideration and the scheme was formulated to safeguard the interests of revenue. While thus fixing the rate of duty with such considerations, there was nothing in the scheme to provide that the benefit of modvat credit will not be available when the manufacturers of the inputs were liable to pay the revised rates fixed in the above manner. In fact, para 1 of Notification No. 58/97-CE extends the provisions of modvat credit to the specified inputs when used in any of the goods falling within the Tariff Schedule. Thus, operational and substantive part of the Notification does not in any was indicate that the benefit so provided was not available in respect of the duty paid inputs used captively in the manufacture of dutiable final products.
On the basis of the requirement of the invoice accompanying the notified inputs and the declaration of the price of such invoice by the manufacturer of the inputs and taking of the credit by the manufacturer of the final products on the strength of such invoices, it appears difficult, in the absence of any express or implied provision in this regard, to conclude that the benefit earlier being enjoyed by the manufacturers of inputs and captive utilisation of such inputs, was sought to be denied. We find that Notification No. 58/97-CE was, in fact, issued to provide the benefit of modvat credit when the duty was being paid on the specified inputs under the compounded levy scheme. We do not find from the substantive part of the modvat Notification that the manufacturers who were earlier availing of the benefit of the modvat credit, when the inputs manufactured by the assessee were being captively consumed in the manufacture of specified final products in other parts of their factory, were to be denied the said facility when they started paying central excise duty on the basis of compounded levy.
11. The inputs manufactured by M/s SIL were also sold to outside manufacturers, and such outside manufacturers were availing of the benefit of input relief. There was also no bar on M/s SIL for purchasing the inputs from outside manufacturers and subject to the conditions as provided in the said notification, they could avail of the benefit of modvat credit of the duty deemed to have been paid by the inputs so purchased from outside. These considerations also indicate that there could be no bar for the availment of modvat credit even when the duty paid inputs were used captively in the manufacture of dutiable final products.
12. We also note that Notification No. 58/97-CE was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (6) of Rule 57-A of the Rules. This modvat notification was not an exemption notification that are issued under the earlier sub-Rule (1) of Rule (8), or the present sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the Act. The rule of strict interpretation may not be applicable with equal force to such notification issued with regard to the credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs.
13. The learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had agreed with the submissions of the appellants that in view of the fact that they were availing of the modvat benefit prior to introduction of Section 3-A and had duly filed a declaration, no further declaration was required to be filed by them. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions of the Tribunal -Suresafe Glass Works (P) Ltd. vs CCE, Calcutta-I 1996 (83) ELT 328 (T).
He has also observed that there was no justification for imposing any penalty.
14. Even with regard to the benefit of Notification on the goods captively consumed, after noting down the submissions of the appellants, he had observed that these submissions "at the first blush appears to be convincing".
15. We have analysed the provisions from different angles and we do not find anything in the Notification to justify the exclusion of the inputs in dispute for the benefit of modvat credit when used by the appellants in the manufacture of specified final products, on the sole ground that the inputs were captively consumed. The case law cited by the learned advocate for the appellants also confirms this view.
16. We have already noted that Notification No. 58/97-CE was not an exemption Notification. It was a Notification issued under the modvat rules.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur, 1995 (77) ELT 474 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 16 of their judgment had observed as under - 16. Lastly, it is for the assessee to establish that the goods manufactured by him come within the ambit of the exemption notification. Since it is a case of exemption from duty, there is no question of any liberal construction to extend the term and the scope of the exemption notification. Such exemption notification must be strictly construed and the assessee should bring himself squarely within the ambit of the notification. No extended meaning can be given to he exempted item to enlarge the scope of exemption granted by the notification.
As the Notification No. 58/97-CE was not an exemption notification and did not provide for any exemption from duty, we consider that these observations of the Apex Court are not applicable in such a situation.
The Apex Court was dealing with the exemption notification no.
332/77-CE dated 1.12.1997 which was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules as it was on the statute book at the relevant time.
Further, while the provisions of para 1 of the said Notification specifying the eligible inputs and the final products, and the provisions relating to the deemed rate of excise duty could be considered as substantive in nature, the rest of the provisions in the Notification are in the nature of procedural requirements.Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 1991 (83) STC 234 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that a distinction between the provisions of the statute which are of substantive character and were built in with certain specific objectives of policy on the one hand and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature on the other, must be kept clearly distinguished.Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. vs State of Bihar, 1988 (68) STC 158 (SC), it was observed by the Apex Court that the procedural requirements should be construed liberally (refer Bajaj Indus. vs District Level Committee, 1993 (88) STC 504 (Rajasthan-Jaipur).
We may also refer to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Formica India Division vs CCE, 1995 (77) ELT 511 (SC), wherein the Apex Court had taken a view that the benefit of the proforma credit could not be denied on the technical ground that the point of time when the manufacturer could not avail of the benefit of proforma credit had elapsed and that they could not be permitted to comply with the provisions of Rule 56-A after that stage has passed. Para 2 from that decision is extracted below - 2. The High Court, however, took note of the fact that no contention had been raised before the Tribunal that the appellants should be permitted to meet the requirements of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to avail of that benefit in a Writ Petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution. That indeed was a technical view to take because if the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 71/71-CE, dated 29th May, 1971, to deny that benefit on the technical ground of non-compliance with Rule 56A would tantamount to permitting recovery of double duty on the intermediary product. The circumstances in which the appellants did not pay the duty on the intermediary product before putting the same to captive consumption for producing that stage, the appellants contested the correctness of the classification and had, therefore, not paid the duty on the intermediary product. When it was found that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and had not paid the same, but had paid the duty on the end product, they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirements of Rule 56A. Once the Tribunal took the view that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and they would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had passed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants should be permitted to avail of the benefit of the notification by complying at this stage with Rule 56A to the satisfaction of the Department.
17. We consider that her is a case where without doing any violance to the language of the Notification, the possible construction could be such as to lead to justice and avoid hardship, presumable not intended, treating at par the different manufacturers placed in similar circumstances. We can do no better than to extract the following passage from the report in the case of The Gaekwar Mills Ltd. vs The State of Gujarat, 1976 (37) STC 129 Gujarat (Ahmedabad), at page 139 - Even if it is found that section 10A is liable to be construed in two possible ways, it cannot be disputed that out of the two possible constructions, only that construction should be accepted which does not lead to absurdity. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Finance Co., if a statute leads to absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence. In this connection, it is very much pertinent to take note of the following observations of Denning, L. J., in Seaford Court Estates v. Asher: "...When a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament,.....and then be must supplement the written word so as to give 'force and life' to the intention of the legislature.....A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron not the creases." The Supreme Court has taken clue from these observations as found from the reported decision in State of Bihar v. A. K. Mukherjee.
These observations of Denning, L.J., are quite pertinent to the facts of the present case and, therefore, instead of putting a literal meaning to the words, "if the offence had not been committed", leading to an obvious absurdity, what we seek to do is to iron out the creases which appear on account of bad drafting.
18. The appellate authority had noted the submissions of the appellants that they had satisfied the basic conditions of the Notification as under - 1) Inputs have to be received directly by the manufacturer of the final products from the factory of the manufacturer of the said inputs.
2) Such receipt should be under cover of an invoice declaring that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid under Section 3A. 3) The manufacturer of the said inputs had declared the invoice price correctly in the documents issued at the time of their clearance from the factory.
4) "Invoice Price" has been defined to mean the price charged by the manufacturer of the inputs and indicated in the accompaning invoice, the payment for which is made directly by the manufacturer of the said inputs by cheque drawn on his own bank account or by bank draft or by banker's cheque.
19. From the above discussion, it appears to us that the benefit of the modvat credit should not be denied in the present case solely on the ground that the duty paid inputs were captively used in the manufacture of dutiable final products. It had been submitted before us at the time of hearing that the price as declared by M/s SIL in their invoices issued for captive consumption was the same as declared by them in the invoices for outside sales, and that no dispute had been raised by the Department in this regard.
20. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and analysing the consequences of the construction as placed on the Modvat Notification by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), we set aside both the impugned order-in-appeal and as a result all the three appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, as per law.
Ordered accordingly.