Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the respondent to this appeal manufactured iron and steel products which it cleared on payment of duty. it also manufactured stainless steel wire rods which it cleared without payment of duty, in terms of notification 47/94 to a 100% export-oriented unit, for conversion by that unit into stainless steel wire which it exported. the respondent took modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the wire rods. notice issued to the respondent proposed to apply the provisions of rule 57cc on the ground that since the clearances to the 100% export-oriented unit were made without payment of duty in pursuance of notification 47/94, these wire rods were exempted from duty, and, by application of rule 57c, the credit could not be taken. the assistant commissioner confirmed the proposal demanding duty, and imposed penalty. on appeal from this order, the commissioner (appeals) noted the tribunal's decision in j.c.t. v. cce [1999 (114) e.lt. 618 (t) = 1999 (31) rlt 212 holding that goods cleared in terms of notification 33/90 without payment of duty for manufacture of final products to be exported were not exempted goods, and other decisions of the tribunal holding the same view. he therefore held that the provisions of rule 57c would not apply and allowed the appeal. this appeal questions that finding.2. in its decision in cce v. steelco gujarat ltd. - 2000 (121) e.l.t.557 (t) = 2000 (41) rlt 243, the tribunal was required to consider the provisions of rule 57c and rule 57cc would apply where some of the goods were cleared under notification 47/94. the tribunal held that the notification was issued under rule 13 of the central excise rules (permitting removal of goods without payment of duty for export under bond) and the provisions of rule 57c would not apply to goods cleared under this notification and therefore the provisions of rule 57cc would also be inapplicable.3. the departmental representative is not able to show why the ratio of this decision should not apply. accordingly we see no grounds to interfere.

Judgment:
1. The respondent to this appeal manufactured iron and steel products which it cleared on payment of duty. It also manufactured stainless steel wire rods which it cleared without payment of duty, in terms of Notification 47/94 to a 100% export-oriented unit, for conversion by that unit into stainless steel wire which it exported. The respondent took Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the wire rods. Notice issued to the respondent proposed to apply the provisions of Rule 57CC on the ground that since the clearances to the 100% export-oriented unit were made without payment of duty in pursuance of Notification 47/94, these wire rods were exempted from duty, and, by application of Rule 57C, the credit could not be taken. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal demanding duty, and imposed penalty. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted the Tribunal's decision in J.C.T. v. CCE [1999 (114) E.LT. 618 (T) = 1999 (31) RLT 212 holding that goods cleared in terms of Notification 33/90 without payment of duty for manufacture of final products to be exported were not exempted goods, and other decisions of the Tribunal holding the same view. He therefore held that the provisions of Rule 57C would not apply and allowed the appeal. This appeal questions that finding.

2. In its decision in CCE v. Steelco Gujarat Ltd. - 2000 (121) E.L.T.557 (T) = 2000 (41) RLT 243, the Tribunal was required to consider the provisions of Rule 57C and Rule 57CC would apply where some of the goods were cleared under Notification 47/94. The Tribunal held that the notification was issued under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules (permitting removal of goods without payment of duty for export under bond) and the provisions of Rule 57C would not apply to goods cleared under this notification and therefore the provisions of Rule 57CC would also be inapplicable.

3. The Departmental Representative is not able to show why the ratio of this decision should not apply. Accordingly we see no grounds to interfere.