2005 (8) TMI 441 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of duty demand and denial of Modvat credit against the appellant.
2. Disallowance of credit on inputs due to incorrect name on the invoice.
3. Duty demand on paint and resin samples disposed of allegedly in a clandestine manner without payment of duty.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal confirming duty demand and denial of Modvat credit. The Tribunal noted that a credit of Rs. 28,800/- was disallowed as the inputs were in the name of another entity. The appellants did not dispute this disallowance and had already reversed the credit. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the impugned order in this regard.

2. Regarding the duty demand on paint and resin samples, the Tribunal found that the demand could not be sustained. The authorities alleged that the appellants disposed of the samples in a clandestine manner without paying duty. However, there was no concrete evidence to support this claim. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing paints on a job work basis, explained that the samples were used in the manufacturing process after a year. The revenue failed to provide any material evidence to refute this explanation. No incriminating documents were found, and no discrepancies were detected in the factory premises. As a result, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' version and set aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on the samples.

3. The impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeal of the appellants was disposed of in the terms mentioned above. The Tribunal concluded that the duty demand on the paint and resin samples, alleged to have been disposed of clandestinely, was not substantiated, and therefore, the penalties were set aside.

(Order dictated in the open Court.)