2007 (8) TMI 301 - AT - Central Excise

Deemed credit on stock of fabrics - Appellant initially filed a declaration on 1-4-2003 declaring the goods lying in the factory as on 31-3-2003. However subsequently another declaration was filed on 7-4-2004 revising the stock quantity since there is no doubt that appellant was in possession of stock authorities below is not justified in denying the credit on the ground that the credit could be granted only in respect of stock declared in the first declaration

Summary

Issues: Deemed credit on stock of fabrics held by the appellant as on 31-3-2003, Modvat credit denial, imposition of personal penalty, subsequent declaration revision, availability of stock evidence, entitlement to Modvat credit on goods received post 1-4-2003.

In the present appeal, the main issue revolved around the deemed credit on the stock of fabrics held by the appellant as on 31-3-2003, concerning the Modvat Credit Rules. Initially, the appellant filed a declaration on 1-4-2003, declaring the goods in the factory as of 31-3-2003. However, a subsequent declaration was filed on 7-4-2004, revising the stock quantity. The authorities denied the Modvat credit and imposed a personal penalty based on the argument that credit could only be granted for the stock declared in the first declaration. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case, emphasizing the need for physical verification of the stock to determine the exact input and finished goods stock as of 1-4-2003.

In the remand proceedings, the demand was reconfirmed by both the original and appellate authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal citing the lack of additional proof regarding the subsequent declaration of stock of bleached fabrics. However, during adjudication, the appellant presented evidence of stock availability as of 31-3-2003, highlighting the mistake in the initial declaration and subsequent rectification. The appellant argued that the revision of the declaration should not be a basis for credit denial, especially if goods were received post 1-4-2003, asserting their entitlement to Modvat credit on duty paid for such goods.

The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) observation contrary to the factual record, acknowledging that the appellant was indeed in possession of the stock. The act of filing a subsequent declaration to revise the stock should not automatically lead to credit denial. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's contention that even goods received after 1-4-2003 entitled them to Modvat credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.