2002 (6) TMI 120 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming demand and penalty imposition.
- Modvat credit availed without receipt of inputs.
- Violation of principles of natural justice.
- Time-limit for demand.
- Imposition of penalty for wrong availment of credit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming demand and penalty imposition
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal confirming a demand of Rs. 1,32,378.86 paise and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellant. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electric wires and cables, availed Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalty alleging that Modvat credit was taken without receipt of inputs, solely based on gate passes issued by other entities. The appellant argued against the confirmation, citing violations of natural justice and time-limit for demand, and contended that no penalty should be imposed as they had reversed the Modvat credit promptly upon realizing the issue.

Issue 2: Modvat credit availed without receipt of inputs
The investigation revealed that the appellant had availed Modvat credit on gate passes issued by other entities without actually receiving the goods. The partner of the appellant admitted to this, but later retracted the statement. The tribunal observed that no evidence proved the actual receipt of goods under the gate passes in question. As Modvat credit is allowed only upon receipt of goods with paid duty, the tribunal upheld the demand of Rs. 1,32,378.86 paise, stating that the non-receipt of goods was established by the revenue.

Issue 3: Violation of principles of natural justice
The appellant argued that the statements of relevant individuals were not provided to them, alleging a violation of natural justice. However, the tribunal did not find this argument substantial, as the investigation and evidence presented were deemed sufficient to establish the case against the appellant.

Issue 4: Time-limit for demand
The appellant claimed that the demand was time-barred as they had filed extracts of relevant records with the department, indicating no suppression of facts. The tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the fact of non-receipt of goods would not be reflected in the records submitted, and thus, the demand was not time-barred.

Issue 5: Imposition of penalty for wrong availment of credit
The tribunal acknowledged the imposition of penalty for wrong availment of credit without actual receipt of goods. While the appellant had reversed the Modvat credit promptly, the tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 40,000 considering the corrective steps taken by the appellant. The tribunal cited relevant case laws to support the imposition and reduction of the penalty based on the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the demand but reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant.