2006 (4) TMI 398 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Extension of stay, Confiscation of DG sets, Imposition of penalty, Denial of Modvat credit

Extension of Stay:
The judgment begins by mentioning that the matter is listed for the extension of stay already granted for an appeal from 2004. However, instead of granting further extension, the case is taken up for consideration. This sets the context for the subsequent analysis of the issues involved.

Confiscation of DG Sets:
The impugned order confirmed the confiscation of 8 DG sets valued at Rs. 28 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,48,800. The appellant was allowed to redeem the DG sets on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 7 lakhs. The primary reason for confiscation was the failure to enter the DG sets in the statutory Daily Production Register (RG-1) upon manufacture, indicating unaccounted-for clandestine removal.

Imposition of Penalty:
The judgment delves into the arguments presented by both sides regarding the confiscation of the DG sets. The appellant contended that the DG sets were not entered in the production register as testing was required before such entry and sale. The appellant also argued that the finding of intention for clandestine removal was unjustified, citing the recording of parts like alternator and engine in the Modvat account as evidence against clandestine activities. The lower authorities were criticized for rejecting the appellant's explanations and confiscating the goods.

Denial of Modvat Credit:
Regarding the denial of Modvat credit of over Rs. 16,000, the appellant argued that the alternators in question had been sent for job work, contesting the duty demand. The judgment acknowledged the merit in the appellant's case concerning the DG sets, noting that the sets were found in the factory with no indication of clandestine removal. The one-to-one correlation between major parts of the DG sets further supported the appellant's argument against clandestine activities. Consequently, the confiscation of the DG sets was deemed unjustified and set aside, along with the penalty. However, no interference was deemed necessary regarding the denial of Modvat credit on the alternators due to the absence of modvatable items in the stock during verification.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the confiscation of DG sets and the associated penalty being set aside, while the denial of Modvat credit on alternators was upheld.