2004 (11) TMI 471 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat credit for specific items.
2. Demand for duty on alleged manufacture of Hydraulic Sea Crane.
3. Recovery of Modvat credit on inputs used for repair/replacement.
4. Levy of penalty and interest under Central Excise Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Modvat credit
The appellant challenged the decision of the adjudicating authority regarding the disallowance of Modvat credit for certain items. The Commissioner's findings were set aside as it was shown that the items were either exempted from duty or received under Central Excise Challan for job work following the correct procedure. The appellant provided documents indicating the duty particulars, and where no duty was paid, Modvat credit could not be taken. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation and set aside the duty demand imposed by the Commissioner.

Issue 2: Demand for duty on Hydraulic Sea Crane
The appellant was accused of manufacturing a new product, the Hydraulic Sea Crane, without proper declaration and clearance. The appellant argued that the conversion of the crane into a hydraulic version did not constitute manufacturing a new product. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, likening the conversion to fitting a diesel engine into a petrol car, where the fundamental nature of the item remains unchanged. Therefore, the demand for duty on this count was set aside.

Issue 3: Recovery of Modvat credit on repair/replacement inputs
The adjudicating authority ordered the recovery of Modvat credit on inputs used for repair/replacement, which the appellant contested, providing evidence that no Modvat inputs were drawn for repair work. An affidavit from an engineer supported this claim. The Tribunal accepted the engineer's affidavit in the absence of contrary evidence and set aside the disallowance of Modvat credit.

Issue 4: Penalty and interest under Central Excise Act
The Tribunal noted that the penalty and interest under Sections 11AB and 11AC could not be sustained as the case pertained to a period before the enactment of these provisions. Therefore, the penalty and interest were not applicable, and the appeal was allowed on the grounds mentioned above.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all issues raised, setting aside the duty demands, disallowance of Modvat credit, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper documentation and adherence to procedural requirements in excise matters.