GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 17618 -CII of 2015 is allowed and the appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in court fee.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 14.1.2015 (Annexure A -1) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), claiming the following substantial questions of law: -

(3.) The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres and claimed modvat/cenvat credit on its inputs and capital goods in accordance with the statutory provisions. One of the inputs used by the appellant for manufacture of its finished goods is tyre cord fabric. During the period in question, the appellant was procuring the tyre cord fabric which attracted levy of Basic Excise Duty (BED) and Additional Excise Duty under Goods of Special Importance Act, 1957 [AED (GSI)]. From 1995 to 2003, the appellant was taking credit of AED (GSI) and was not utilizing the same. Accordingly, unutilized balance of credit of AED (GSI) lying with the appellant on 1.3.2003 was Rs. 15,43,76,318/ -. The Finance Act, 2003 made amendments to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (in short "2002 Rules") allowing utilization of credit of AED (GSI) for discharging duty liability of BED and Special Excise Duty (SED). However, the said provision did not specify upto which date prior to the date of amendment could it be utilized for payment of BED and SED. Thus, the appellant utilized credit of AED (GSI) to the tune of Rs. 13,27,33,800/ - for discharging liability of BED and SED on its finished goods out of which Rs. 8,71,12,812/ - had accrued during the period prior to 1.4.2000. Sec. 88 of the Finance Act, 2004 (for brevity "2004 Act") amended Rule 3(6) of the 2002 Rules retrospectively providing that only the AED (GSI) credit accrued after 1.4.2000 could be utilized for payment of BED and SED on the finished products and not the credit accrued prior to 1.4.2000. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 19.4.2005 (Annexure A -4) confirmed the duty demand to the tune of Rs. 8,71,12,812/ - along with interest and dropped the penalty proceedings. It also dropped the duty demand of Rs. 4,56,50,988/ - for the period post April 2000. The appellant vide receipts dated 31.12.2004 (Annexures A -5 and A -6, respectively) deposited the duty of Rs. 8,71,12,812/ -. According to the appellant, out of the total demand, a sum of Rs. 21,38,512/ - pertaining to credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exported finished goods was not part of the present dispute. Feeling aggrieved against the order, Annexure A -4, the appellant filed an appeal on 29.6.2005 (Annexure A -7) before the Tribunal who vide order dated 14.1.2015 (Annexure A -1) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.