Judgements

Dunlop India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 9 July, 2007

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Calcutta
Dunlop India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 9 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007 (121) ECC 125, 2007 (147) ECR 125 Tri Kolkata
Bench: S T Chittaranjan, D Panda


ORDER

Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)

1. Heard both sides.

2. The appellants manufacture tyres and tubes in which diaphragm bags/air bags/curing bags are used, which in turn are produced as intermediate products by the appellants out of duty-paid inputs, the credit of which is availed by the appellants. The appellants have been denied the credit under the impugned Order on the ground that these intermediate goods are exempted under Notification No. 50/67-CE. The appellants have also been penalised for not maintaining appropriate accounts for these intermediate goods before clearance of the same for use within the factory of production as well as for removal to Ka kinara where the appellants are getting their finished goods manufactured in the premises of the Tyre Corporation of India. It is the contention of the learned Advocate, Shri S.K. Roychowdhury that in both the cases, the tyres and tubes are being manufactured (SIC) on behalf of the appellants who have paid duty on the same. He, further, states that in terms of the Tribunal’s Order in their own case reported in 1998 (97) ELT 135 (T), the impugned goods (bags) have been held to be inputs in the manufacture of tyre and MODVAT Credit is held to be admissible.

3. Heard the learned D.R. who supports the impugned Order on the ground that the impugned bags are fully exempt. Hence, no input duty credit is available in respect of the same.

4. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records and cited decision, we find that the bags which are in the nature of intermediate goods, have already been held to be inputs in the appellants’ own case under the cited decision. Moreover, as pointed out by Shri Roychowdhury, at the material time, Rule 57D clearly provided that the credit is not to be varied or denied even if the intermediate goods are exempt so long as the final products are dutiable.

5. Keeping in view the cited decision of the Tribunal as well as the specific provision of Rule 57D, we hold that the appellants are entitled for duty credit taken on inputs used in the intermediate goods, namely bags and hence, we set aside the impugned Orders and allow the appeals.

Pronounced and dictated in the open court.