2004 (8) TMI 524 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat credit and duty demand on removal of goods without payment of duty.
2. Confiscation of jeeps fitted with bodies cleared without duty payment.
3. Imposition of penalty and redemption fine.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Modvat credit and duty demand
The appellants manufactured fibre reinforced plastic bodies of motor vehicles on chassis received under Rule 57F(2) without payment of duty until December 1993. They claimed Modvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing these bodies. The dispute arose when the Superintendent of Central Excise seized jeeps fitted with these bodies, which were cleared after payment of duty using the Modvat credit taken on 3-1-1995. A Show Cause Notice was issued for disallowing Modvat credit and demanding duty. The Assistant Commissioner directed the reversal of Modvat credit and confirmed the duty demand. The Commissioner upheld the decision. However, the Tribunal found that duty demand on jeeps fitted with bodies cleared under Rule 57F(2) challans for job work did not warrant penalty or confiscation as the duty liability was disputed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand and disallowed the penalty and confiscation.

Issue 2: Confiscation of jeeps fitted with bodies cleared without duty payment
The Tribunal concluded that the duty demand of Rs. 19,473 on jeeps fitted with bodies cleared without payment of duty could not justify the penalty and confiscation imposed. It was noted that duty demands were not required on the supplier of jeep chassis under Rule 57F(2) challans. Hence, the duty on jeeps and their confiscation were not upheld due to the disputed duty liability and lack of justification for penalty and confiscation.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty and redemption fine
The Tribunal found the penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh under Rule 173Q and the redemption fine imposed to be disproportionate and not warranted in the circumstances of the case. Since the levy of excise duty on the activity was in dispute and contested by the assessee, the penalty under Rule 173Q was deemed unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and redemption fine, considering the doubt surrounding the excise duty liability and the absence of sufficient grounds for imposing penalties and fines.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by setting aside the duty demands, redemption fine, and penalty imposed, while refraining from making any orders regarding the reversal of Modvat credit.