2005 (1) TMI 551 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Deemed Modvat credit under Notification 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.)
2. Timeliness of taking credit as per notification requirements
3. Financial hardship claim of the appellant

Analysis:

1. Deemed Modvat Credit under Notification 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.):
The case involved the appellant seeking deemed Modvat credit covered under Notification 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.) dated 31-3-2000. The duty amount involved was Rs. 11.01 lakh with a penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed. The appellant argued that they fulfilled the conditions of the notification by entering inputs in the RG 23A Part I Register on 1-4-2000, despite the factory being closed. The appellant requested dispensation from depositing the duty and penalty.

2. Timeliness of Taking Credit as per Notification Requirements:
The Revenue contended that the appellant took credit in July 2000, missing the deadline of 30th April 2000 as specified in the notification. The jurisdictional Range Officer's advice for confirmation of the divisional officer was disputed, with the Commissioner (Appeals) finding no evidence to support this claim. The Revenue argued that no confirmation or permission was required from the Department as per the Board's Circular. Additionally, the Revenue highlighted that the condition of entering inputs in RG 23A Part I was deemed inconsequential by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Financial Hardship Claim of the Appellant:
The appellant failed to provide any evidence of financial hardship to support their request for dispensation from paying the full amount of duty and penalty. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not establish a prima facie case for full dispensation. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,00,000 within eight weeks, after which the remaining amount of duty and penalty would be dispensed with. The compliance and hearing were scheduled for 4th April 2005.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the timeliness requirement for taking credit as per the notification, dismissed the appellant's financial hardship claim due to lack of evidence, and ordered partial payment to be made within a specified timeframe.