WIPRO LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue in all these appeals is common and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE appellants are admittedly manufacturers of Soap having facility to process hydrogenation or hydrolysis, within the factory of production and were obtaining Money Credit under the rules of Chapter V.AAA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on Minor Oils received as Raw Material in the factory. They were also availing Money Credit on Rice Bran Oil (hereinafter referred to as RBO). RBO received from Hindustan Lever Limited (hereinafter referred to as HLL) and as per contract, they were to return 80% of the inputs so received to HLL, after hydrogenation/hydrolysis of the RBO. They were reversing proportionate money credit on the quantities so returned to HLL. The remaining quantity of the RBO as received from HLL, after hydrolysis, was taken up and used in the manufacture of Soap. The money credit in their books of accounts were utilised as prescribed under the rules on clearance of such Soap manufactured by them. They were issued show cause notice proposing to deny them the money credit availed, on the RBO, received for such processing from HLL. It also proposed to deny the amounts adjusted towards clearance of Toilet Soaps made by them and also proposed penalties. The jurisdictional officers confirmed the proposals as made in the show cause notice and imposed penalties.

(3.) THE Commissioner (Appeals) came to a finding that : In the present case it was clear from the admitted fact on record that the input received were not for the purpose of use in the manufacture of Soap but for manufacture of fatty acids and returning the same to M/s. HLL. Therefore, as a matter of fact they are not eligible for money credit at all for such oil received for the purpose of such conversion and return as per the provisions of Rule 57K and the notification issued thereunder. Therefore, availment of money credit for the inputs received for processing and return is not correct, legal or proper and thereafter held that such money credit availed had to be disallowed under Rule 57(P) and the demand was not barred beyond 5 years as pleaded before him. Since the assessments were provisional and provisions of Rule 57 -I or under 11A would be applicable and under Rule 57(P) no time limit had been prescribed and the orders of the Assistant Commissioners were to be held proper and penalties as determined under Rule 173Q were upheld...