2008 (9) TMI 767 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit of duty to the applicant based on supplementary invoices.
2. Entitlement of Unit No. 1 to consequential relief of duty paid and its impact on Modvat credit for Unit No. 2.
3. Discussion on penalty and imposition of penalty on the respondent.

In the judgment delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J., the issue of denial of Modvat credit of duty to the applicant based on supplementary invoices was addressed. The Tribunal found that the order passed in respect of the same appellant and on the same ground denied the benefit of Modvat credit of duty to the applicant. The appeal filed by Unit No. 1 against the demand of duty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), and no appeal was filed by Revenue. However, Unit No. 1 had already paid the duty using supplementary invoices, on which Unit No. 2 had taken the credit. The present order followed an earlier order where Revenue's appeal was allowed, leading to the denial of Modvat credit in the current case.

Regarding the entitlement of Unit No. 1 to consequential relief of duty paid and its impact on Modvat credit for Unit No. 2, it was noted that the earlier order confirming the demand of duty against Unit No. 1 was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and had attained finality. This entitled Unit No. 1 to the relief of duty already paid by them, impacting the Modvat credit for Unit No. 2. The issue of penalty was not discussed in the previous order, and no orders were passed concerning the same due to the absence of the assessee during the appeal dismissal. Consequently, a new paragraph was added to address the penalty issue, stating that there was no justification for imposing a penalty on the respondent, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed to the extent of rejecting the Modvat credit.

The judgment concluded by disposing of the ROM application in the above terms, providing clarity on the denial of Modvat credit, the entitlement of Unit No. 1 to relief, and the imposition of penalty on the respondent based on the specific circumstances and legal considerations discussed in the case.

---