2004 (12) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Under-valuation of final product
2. Denial of Modvat credit
3. Job work basis and clearance of goods
4. Jurisdiction over factory and Modvat credit
5. Exceeding exemption limit
6. Penalty imposition

Issue 1: Under-valuation of final product
The period involved in the appeal was from 1991-92 to August 1995. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand against the appellants based on under-valuation of the final product, Sintered Bushes. The appellant argued that the goods were sold to two different classes of buyers and the under-valuation claim was not justified. They contended that the distinction between original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and retail buyers was significant. The Tribunal agreed that if the prices to OEMs and retailers were uniform, the under-valuation claim could not be sustained. Additionally, the demand was found to be barred by limitation as the invoices were provided to the department earlier, and no suppression was proven. Therefore, the demand was set aside.

Issue 2: Denial of Modvat credit
Another part of the order confirmed a duty demand against one appellant and denied Modvat credit to another. The denial was based on the claim that the inputs were sent for processing on job work basis without being received back at the factory. The Tribunal found that there was no revenue implication as duty had been paid on the final product by the appellant who availed the credit. The demand was set aside as there was no justification for confirming it.

Issue 3: Job work basis and clearance of goods
A demand of duty was confirmed against an appellant for carrying out job work without receiving the inputs and dispatching the final product directly. The Tribunal set aside this part of the order, stating that there was no revenue implication and the denial of credit was not justified.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction over factory and Modvat credit
A demand against an appellant was confirmed by denying Modvat credit based on an allegation that the inputs were not manufactured by the supplier mentioned in the invoice. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to question the clearance based on the supplier's invoice and found the demand barred by limitation. Consequently, the demand was set aside.

Issue 5: Exceeding exemption limit
A demand was confirmed against an appellant for exceeding the exemption limit. Since other demands were set aside, the appellant's clearances fell within the exemption limit, leading to the demand being set aside.

Issue 6: Penalty imposition
Considering that most demands were set aside, the Tribunal found no justification for imposing penalties on the appellants. Therefore, the penalties were set aside, except for a small portion confirmed against one appellant.

In conclusion, all appeals, except for a minor duty demand against one appellant, were allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellants.