1993 (1) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation on demand for duty.
2. Utilization of Modvat credit for different types of television sets.
3. Adjustment of debits and credits in RG-23A and PLA accounts.
4. Penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation on Demand for Duty:
The appellants challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-10-1990, which partially upheld the Order-in-Original dated 28-3-1989. The Collector (Appeals) held that the demand for the period November 1987 to February 1988 was barred by limitation, while the demand for the subsequent period up to August 1988 was within the time limit and thus upheld.

2. Utilization of Modvat Credit for Different Types of Television Sets:
The appellants argued that they used the Modvat credit earned from inputs for both Black & White and Colour TV sets interchangeably, as they were not informed by the department that such credit should be used exclusively for the respective types of TV sets. They cited various legal precedents and trade notices to support their contention that such credit adjustments should be permissible and that the department's objection was raised belatedly.

3. Adjustment of Debits and Credits in RG-23A and PLA Accounts:
The appellants contended that if the department had timely pointed out the issue, they would have adjusted the debits and credits accordingly. They provided detailed statements showing the duty paid from RG-23A and PLA accounts for both types of TV sets. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had paid more duty on Black & White TV sets from their PLA than the Modvat credit wrongly utilized for Colour TV sets. Therefore, the Tribunal found the appellants' request to adjust the debits and credits reasonable and permissible.

4. Penalty Imposed by the Assistant Collector:
The penalty of Rs. 2,000/- imposed by the Assistant Collector was reduced to Rs. 1,000/- by the Collector (Appeals). The appellants argued that there was no case for penalty as they acted in good faith and there was no actual loss of revenue. The Tribunal, considering the appellants' bona fide actions and the lack of revenue loss, found merit in setting aside the penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' plea for adjusting the debits and credits was valid. The refusal by the Assistant Collector to allow the adjustment, despite acknowledging its admissibility, was reversed. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector to re-examine the request for adjustment of the Modvat credit and PLA debits. If adjusted as requested, there would be no case for recovery of duty. The appeal was allowed on these terms.