ORDER
T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. 174/2004 CE dated 18.08.2004, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin.
2. The appellants are manufactures of tread rubber which is an excisable commodity. Till 31.3.2000, they were availing the facility of modvat scheme. In the financial year 2000-01, they opted for duty exemption under Notification 8/2000 dated 1.3.2000 without availing the benefit of Cenvat Scheme. In terms of Rule 57AG(2), on exercising the above option they were required to pay an amount equivalent to the credit allowed in respect of inputs lying in stock or used in any finished goods lying in stock on the date when such option is exercised. The appellants reversed an amount of Rs. 13,602/- being the credit of duty lying in stock as well as on the stock of finished goods as on 31.3.2000. However the Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that there was a stock of 21,910 Kgs of compound rubber and 5,495 Kgs of rubber waste and scrap, on which the total credit involved was Rs. 1,22,070/-. The lower authority confirmed the demand by Order-in-Original No. 13/2001 dated 5.2.2001. The appellants appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-original. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned Order-in-Appeal.
2. Shri S. Vittal Shetty, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants. He urged the following:
(i) As per Rule 57AG(2) of the Central Excise Rules an assessee is required to pay an amount equivalent to the credit allowed to him in respect of inputs lying in stock or used in any finished goods. Before opting for Notification No. 8/2000 dated 1.3.2000, the appellants had reversed the credit of duty involved on the inputs and finished goods amounting to Rs. 13,602/- since the semi-finished goods and waste and parings would not come within the purview of inputs the appellant has not included the same in the credit of duty envisaged under Rule 57AG(2) of the Central Excise Rules.
(ii) The finding of the lower authorities that the compounded rubber is not intermediate product is against the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules made there under.
(iii) The following case laws were relied on:
(a) Guardian Rubber Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE., Cochin
(b) Raghuvar (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi
(c) CCE, Kanpur v. Hi-Tech Polypack
3. The learned JDR reiterated the impugned order and relied on he following decisions:
(i) Amco Batteries Ltd. herein it is held that no evidence was brought on record to show that compounded item is capable of being marketed.
(ii) Bate India Ltd. wherein it has been held that waste of rubber and scrap arising in the course of manufacture of rubber sheets is liable to Central Excise duty.
(iii) Ralson (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I wherein it has been held that compounded rubber having much longer shelf life is marketable.
4. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. This Bench in the case of Guardian Rubber Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Cochin has held that while opting out of Modvat Scheme, the appellants are required only to reverse the credit on the inputs lying in stock and also “on the inputs contained in the finished goods. Since waste product is not considered as finished goods, it has been held that credit on inputs contained in waste is not required to be reversed. Following ratio of the cited judgment, we hold that the credit attributable to 5495 Kgs of waste parings is not liable to be reversed. As regards the compounded rubber, it has been held by the Tribunal that the compound rubber is having longer shelf life and is liable to excise duty. Moreover the Original Authority has given a finding that the compound rubber itself is an input used in the manufacture of tread rubber. Therefore the contention of the appellant that Rule 57AG(2) is not attracted in respect of the compounded rubber, is not tenable. In these circumstances, the appellant is liable to reverse the credit attributable to the compounded rubber. Therefore we partially allow the appeal by holding that the appellant need not reverse the credit attributable to waste. But they should reverse the credit attributable to compounded rubber. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Pronounced in the open court on 23 Feb 2007)