2006 (9) TMI 46 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat Appellant by fraud show the lesser value of quantity of good imported and credit availed on it proportionally There is no dispute about quantity received and duty paid Accordingly no action being taken on it

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty dropped by Commissioner
2. Alleged irregularities and misuse of Modvat facility
3. Alleged misuse of Modvat credit based on forged documents
4. Confirmation of demanded amount by Commissioner
5. Contestation of Commissioner's findings by Revenue

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner's decision to drop the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 69,522.85. The Respondents, engaged in manufacturing Copper & Copper Alloy Products, Zinc Products, Tin Products, and Copper articles, were found to have irregularities and misuse of Modvat facility. The show cause notice issued in 1995 alleged excess Modvat credit availed by the units, including credit on forged documents and manufacturing brass rods using non-duty paid inputs. The Commissioner confirmed most of the demanded amount but dropped the Rs. 69,522.85 related to Modvat credit based on forged documents.

2. Regarding the alleged misuse of Modvat credit based on forged documents, it was claimed that the Respondents availed credit on inputs purchased with forged documents. An employee of the supplier confirmed manipulation of documents to reduce quantities. The Respondents argued they purchased materials under proper endorsement and took credit based on actual quantities received. The Commissioner found the evidence insufficient, noting the lack of corroboration and the employee's statement not being sufficient proof. The Commissioner did not confirm the demand related to the alleged misuse of Modvat credit.

3. The Revenue contested the Commissioner's decision, arguing that credit was taken based on gate passes with tampered quantities. However, it was established that the Respondents received the actual quantities reflected in the gate passes and took credit accordingly. As the received quantities were duty paid, any discrepancies in the documents were the responsibility of the suppliers. The Tribunal upheld the Respondents' right to Modvat credit, as they had received and accounted for the actual duty-paid quantities, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the reasoning behind the decisions made by the Commissioner and the Tribunal.