ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. Appellants are manufacturers of fruit juice product named “Maaza”. The same was exempt after 1-3-2001. Prior to that date, the appellants had obtained capital goods for the use in the manufacture of this final product “Maaza” and availed 50% of the duty paid on such capital goods as credit during the year 2000-2001 and took credit of the remaining 50% in the year 2001-2002 as provided under Rule 57AC of the Modvat Rules as applicable. This subsequent 50% credit was denied on the grounds that “Maaza” the final product was exempt from duty with effect from 1-3-2001.
2. The appellants were also asked to reverse credit of common inputs viz. sugar, used in the manufacture of final product, as Maaza was exempt after 1-3-2001. The credit availed on such common inputs from 1-3-2001 to 31-6-2001 was Rs. 1,31,444/- and the same was reversed on pointing out by officers on 23-5-2001 on 3-6-2001. However, 8% of the price of Maaza cleared was demanded to be deposited, for the entire year 2001-2002 since separate accounts of the common inputs were not maintained.
3. After hearing both sides, and considering the submissions of the ld. D.R. that the term in the possession and use of the manufacture of the final products in such subsequent years’ as used in Rule 57AC would have to be read as “used in final products which are eligible under Modvat Scheme” and that would be only dutiable final product thus should not be duty free”, Maaza as in this case; we cannot accept the same to read the words ‘duty free’ before the words final products’ in this Rule 57AC(2) term as is being proposed by the Revenue. On a plane reading of Rule 57AC(2), we cannot find any reasons to deny the benefit of the eligibility to the credit, which was availed and the remaining amount was deferred by him in 2000-2001 but only 50% of the same was availed due to the provisions of the rules. The other 50% having been deferred to 2001-2002, is found to be correctly availed and no bar exists except of deferment in time.
4. As regards the reversal of credit availed, on common inputs, after 1-3-2001, the same have been reversed by the appellants on being pointed out. Therefore, following the settled position in this regard, vide decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Raja Ram Marbles Pvt. Ltd. – 2004 (64) RLT 138 (CESTAT-Del.) and CCE, Hyderabad-II v. SPM Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. – 2004 TIOL 845 CESTAT-Bang. and when we find that ld. DR was unable to show any contra decision to the above, we would set aside the order on this ground also.
5. Hence there is no case or cause for imposition of any penalties.
6. In view of our findings, we find no merits to sustain the order. The same is required to be set aside and the appeals are allowed.
(Pronounced in Court.)