2006 (8) TMI 80 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat A number of cases alleged on the appellant such as non accounted of good in RG-1 register and denial of credit under objection in two cases After considering the fact authority decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-accounting of manufactured goods in RG-1 Register leading to confiscation and penalty.
2. Denial of Modvat credit due to goods received under incorrect documents.
3. Discrepancy in Modvat credit due to errors in RG23A Part I Register.

Issue 1: The first issue in this judgment pertains to the non-accounting of manufactured goods in the RG-1 Register, leading to confiscation and penalty. The appellants argued that the goods were available in the factory premises, and duty was paid subsequently. The Tribunal considered the duty payment and the presence of goods in the factory premises, setting aside the confiscation but imposing a reduced penalty of Rs. 20,000 for non-accounting in the RG-1 Register.

Issue 2: The second issue involves the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 53,248.15 due to goods received under documents not directly consigned to the appellants as per Rule 57T(3). The Tribunal upheld the denial of credit based on the applicable rule at the material time. Although the appellants lacked relevant invoices, the Tribunal found no grounds for imposing a penalty, setting it aside while rejecting the appeal except for the penalty amount.

Issue 3: The final issue addresses the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,74,950 due to discrepancies in the RG23A Part I Register, where the reference to the invoice did not match the actual Bill of Entry (B/E) details. The appellants argued that the raw material in question was the same and used for manufacturing detergent, despite minor discrepancies. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation, setting aside the denial of credit and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits to the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment dealt with issues related to non-compliance with accounting registers, denial of Modvat credit based on document discrepancies, and errors in register entries affecting credit eligibility. The Tribunal balanced the facts presented by both sides to arrive at decisions regarding confiscation, penalty imposition, and credit denial, ensuring fair treatment while upholding legal provisions and principles.