2004 (11) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q
- Demand under Section 571(5) of Central Excise Act
- Imposition of penalty under Section 209A

Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty:
The appeals arose from the Commissioner's order confirming the demand of Central Excise duty, penalty under Rule 173Q, and additional penalties. The appellant firm was found availing Modvat credit on HR/CR coils, but it was revealed that only HR/CR sheets were received, not the coils covered under central excise invoices. The Commissioner held that the appellant failed to establish that the CR/HR sheets received were from the duty-paid coils. The appellant's contention was that the coils were cut into sheets before receipt, either by suppliers or themselves. The Tribunal observed that the weight correlation between duty-paid coils and sheets found supported the appellant's claim, allowing the Modvat credit.

Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q, alleging wrongful Modvat credit on coils not received. The Commissioner's findings were based on various discrepancies, including lack of evidence for coil-to-sheet conversion and payment irregularities. The appellant argued that they procured duty-paid coils from multiple suppliers, providing evidence of transport bills and affidavits. The Tribunal found the department's assumptions lacking substantial evidence and ruled in favor of the appellant, citing a similar case precedent.

Demand under Section 571(5) of Central Excise Act:
The Commissioner demanded penalties under Section 571(5) of the Central Excise Act, citing the appellant's alleged admission of wrongly taken Modvat credit. The appellant contended that the department failed to prove the credit was undeserved, providing evidence of legitimate procurement and conversion processes. The Tribunal found the department's arguments unsubstantiated and ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of proper evidence in penalty assessments.

Imposition of penalty under Section 209A:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty under Section 209A, alleging non-conversion of duty-paid coils into sheets and procurement from unknown sources without proper documentation. The appellant argued that suppliers sometimes provided coils already cut into sheets, supported by central excise invoices. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanations plausible, noting the weight correlation between coils and sheets. The Commissioner's order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the penalties imposed.