2006 (5) TMI 392 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Availment of irregular and excess Modvat credit.
2. Diversion of inputs to the Services unit.
3. Consideration of Input Output Norms and APSEB specifications.
4. Time bar aspects.
5. Denial of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise regarding the availment of irregular and excess Modvat credit by the appellants, who are manufacturers of Transformers supplied to APSEB. The Revenue alleged that the appellants diverted a part of the input to their Services unit, leading to a discrepancy in input usage. The duties and penalties levied included Modvat credit wrongly availed, confiscation of goods, penalties, interest, and personal penalties on individuals.

2. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellants argued that the adjudicating authority should have considered the Input Output Norms as per the SION of the EXIM Policy, emphasizing that APSEB specifications indicate the minimum quantity in the final product, not actual usage. The time bar aspects and the authenticity of the Chartered Engineer's Certificate supporting the Input Output Norms were also raised.

3. The Revenue contended that only the norms provided by APSEB should be considered due to the supply of Transformers to them. The CEGAT had directed the consideration of the Chartered Engineer's Certificate, emphasizing the importance of overall circumstances and natural justice principles. The Chartered Engineer's affidavit supported the appellants' input consumption ratios based on SION norms, indicating no evidence of diversion to the consumer unit.

4. After careful review, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to conclusively prove the diversion of modvated inputs to the consumer unit. The Chartered Engineer's Certificate was crucial in establishing the validity of input consumption norms, and the adjudicating authority's refusal to consider it was deemed unacceptable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any necessary consequential relief.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the legal judgment, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal principles involved.