2006 (1) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Rectification of order, Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q, Modvat credit based on photocopy of bill of entry

Rectification of order:
The applicant sought rectification of the order dated 8-2-2005, contending that the ground raised in the memo of appeal against the penalty imposition of Rs. 30,000 was not considered by the learned Member (Judicial). The learned counsel relied on a Division Bench decision and argued that since there was no mala fide intention, the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, should not have been imposed. However, the rectification was rejected based on the lack of error in the impugned order, which followed the Tribunal's decision.

Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q:
The adjudicating authority found that the appellant submitted only a photocopy of the entry instead of the original duty paying document required under Rule 57G(8) of the rules. Despite the party's promise to produce the original document, they failed to do so, resulting in the disallowance of credit and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 30,000 under Rule 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this decision, noting that the appellant did not provide evidence to support the Modvat credit taken based on the photocopy of the Bill of Entry. The Appellate Commissioner emphasized that the appellant was not eligible for the credit as per the established rules and upheld the original order.

Modvat credit based on photocopy of bill of entry:
The case involved the issue of Modvat credit taken on the photocopy of the bill of entry, which was not disputed by the appellant before the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal's decision in a previous case highlighted that a photocopy of the bill of entry was not an admissible document for claiming Modvat credit. The appellant's failure to produce the original duty paying document as required led to the disallowance of credit and penalty imposition. The absence of the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry, as specified in Rule 57G(3), rendered the appellant ineligible for the credit, justifying the penalty under Rule 173Q(bb) for wrongly taken duty credit.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the rectification request, penalty imposition under Rule 173Q, and the Modvat credit issue comprehensively, emphasizing the adherence to established rules and precedents in deciding the case.