2003 (7) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand on rough castings due to undervaluation - Differential duty - Modvat credit - HELD THAT - In any event, since this is a case of movement of goods from one unit to another of the same assessee under Modvat Scheme, the whole issue is revenue neutral inasmuch as whatever duty is paid in one unit is available in the next unit. In case the assessees were to pay the differential duty as demanded, the same amount would be available as credit in the second unit for utilization for payment of duty on goods manufactured there. We consider the entire proceedings unwarranted. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the following Issues:
1. Duty demand on rough castings due to undervaluation.
2. Availability of Modvat credit for duty paid in the first unit.
3. Applicability of extended period for demand.

Issue 1: Duty demand on rough castings due to undervaluation
The appellants manufacture Alloy Steel Castings in two units and transfer rough castings between units for finishing processes. Duty demands were raised on the ground of undervaluation, leading to short payment of duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) found that the department failed to establish undervaluation and set aside the demand for the period before amalgamation. The appellants had informed the department about Modvat credit, indicating no suppression of facts. The Commissioner held the demand as time-barred and set aside the impugned order.

Issue 2: Availability of Modvat credit for duty paid in the first unit
The appellants argued that duty paid in the first unit is available as Modvat credit in the second unit, making the process revenue neutral. The Tribunal found the facts similar to a previous order where the Commissioner had ruled in favor of the appellants. The movement of goods under the Modvat Scheme ensures duty paid in one unit is available in the next unit, making the differential duty demand unwarranted. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, considering the entire proceedings unnecessary.

Issue 3: Applicability of extended period for demand
The Commissioner found that the extended period was not applicable due to the absence of suppression of facts and the time-barred notice. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's findings and set aside the demand, emphasizing the revenue-neutral nature of the Modvat Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, considering the pre-deposit requirement waived and the demands unjustified.