2007 (1) TMI 64 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Demand arises on the following ground of (i) scrape (MS Scrape/SS scrape) cleared without payment of duty (ii) Modvat credit fraudulently availed on CRCA sheets /coils purchased - After considering the fact appeal allowed partly

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on scrap cleared without payment of duty.
2. Disallowance of Modvat credit on CRCA Sheets/Coils.
3. Modvat credit fraudulently availed on CRCA Sheets/Coils.

Analysis:
1. The duty demand on scrap cleared during the period April '98 to November '98 was upheld based on evidence including statements and recovered slips. The demand for the period 1995-96 to 1997-98 was set aside as the burden of proving clandestine clearance during that period was not met by the Revenue. The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient for the earlier period and set aside the demand of Rs. 1,81,665/-.

2. Regarding the denial of Modvat credit, the appellants argued that Rule 57-I was not in force at the time of the show cause notice. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and held that the Modvat provisions were substituted by the Cenvat Credit Rules before the notice was issued. It was concluded that Rule 57-I was not applicable in this case, following the analysis of various Supreme Court judgments and the difference between expressions like repeal, amendment, and substitution. The recovery of credit under Rule 57-I was set aside based on this interpretation.

3. Upholding the finding of clandestine clearance of scrap for the specified period, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants to Rs. 1 lakh. The duty demand was sustained for the relevant period, leading to the imposition of a reduced penalty. The appeal was partly allowed based on the upheld duty demand and the reduced penalty amount.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of duty demand on scrap, disallowance of Modvat credit, and fraudulent availing of Modvat credit. The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented, legal interpretations, and previous judgments, resulting in the setting aside of certain demands and penalties while upholding others.