2005 (11) TMI 4 - AT - Central Excise

(1) Paper scrap generated while unpacking glass shells (2) discrepency in stock of inputs (3) Cenvat credit on capital goods received when finished goods was exempt but installed when dutiable

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Admissibility of Modvat credit on glass shells
2. Duty on scrap
3. Duty on paper scrap
4. Unused/obsolete inputs duty
5. Stock variation
6. Capital goods on Electrostatic Power Coating machine and sealing machine
7. Samples dutiability for testing
8. Penalty on the appellant company
9. Penalty on individuals under Rule 209A
10. Revenue's appeal on duty demand for carbouys/drums
11. Penalty imposition under Section 11AC

Analysis:
1. Admissibility of Modvat credit on glass shells:
The Commissioner found that a portion of the credit reversed by the appellant company was not required to be reversed. The appellant agreed but sought re-credit of the amount. The Tribunal ruled that the remedy did not lie with them, and the appellant should apply for permission as per the Commissioner's order.

2. Duty on scrap:
The Commissioner dropped the demand on drums and carbuoys as scrap cleared without duty payment. The appellant had no grievance against this finding and requested the amount to be allowed as credit. The Tribunal stated that a decision was not required on this issue, as discussed in the previous point.

3. Duty on paper scrap:
The Commissioner demanded duty on paper scrap, which the appellant contested, arguing it was not a result of the manufacturing process. The Tribunal observed that if the waste paper was merely packing material recovered during unpacking, no duty was payable as it had already suffered duty with the supplier. The demand for duty on waste paper was set aside.

4. Unused/obsolete inputs duty:
The appellant raised a grievance regarding the unsustainable demand on this account, seeking re-credit of a specific amount. The Tribunal reiterated that a decision was not needed on this issue, and the appellant could claim relief from the authorities.

5. Stock variation:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to reverse Modvat credit on inputs that were not physically available due to discrepancies in records. The appellant's explanation of clerical mistakes was deemed unsatisfactory, and the reversal of credit was upheld.

6. Capital goods on Electrostatic Power Coating machine and sealing machine:
The Commissioner denied credit on these machines received before a specified date. The appellant argued for credit based on the date of use, but the Tribunal rejected this plea, citing relevant rules and a previous Tribunal decision. The demand for credit on these machines was not allowed.

7. Samples dutiability for testing:
The Commissioner held that duty was payable on samples of electric bulbs removed for testing after manufacturing. The Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing a Supreme Court ruling and rejecting the appellant's reliance on a different Tribunal decision.

8. Penalty on the appellant company:
The Tribunal upheld the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC on the company for contravening excise rules with intent to evade duty. The penalty amount was reduced considering the circumstances and errors in duty demand.

9. Penalty on individuals under Rule 209A:
Penalties were imposed on individuals under Rule 209A for their involvement in contravening excise rules, despite their argument that they did not physically handle the goods. The Tribunal rejected their contention, upholding the penalties.

10. Revenue's appeal on duty demand for carbouys/drums:
The Revenue appealed against the dropping of duty demand on carbouys/drums cleared as scrap. The Tribunal held that no duty was payable on these items as they did not come into existence through a manufacturing process.

11. Penalty imposition under Section 11AC:
The Revenue sought a higher penalty under Section 11AC, which the Tribunal rejected, considering the specific circumstances of the case. The appeal on penalty imposition was dismissed.

In conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the appellant company on specific issues, rejected the appeals of the individuals, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The judgments on duty demands, penalties, and credit reversals were made based on the detailed analysis and legal interpretations provided in the judgment.