1993 (3) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demands for Rs. 726/- and Rs. 8,760/- against the appellants under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Irregularities in availing MODVAT credit for duty paid on input Aluminium powder and countervailing duty on Artificial Vax.
3. Contention of demand being hit by the period of limitation.
4. Rejection of credit for Rs. 726/- due to goods being received under Transport Receipt instead of an approved document.
5. Rejection of credit for Rs. 8,760/- due to excess credit taken and non-compliance with Public Trade Notice No. 41/87.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original confirming demands for Rs. 726/- and Rs. 8,760/- against the appellants under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue 2:
The appellants were engaged in manufacturing Plastic colour concentrate and had opted for MODVAT. The irregularities in availing MODVAT credit for duty paid on input Aluminium powder and countervailing duty on Artificial Vax were raised.

Issue 3:
The appellants contended that the demand was barred by the period of limitation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for Rs. 726/- and Rs. 8,760/-.

Issue 4:
Regarding the credit for Rs. 726/-, the appellants had obtained a dated acknowledgement on the declaration on 18-3-1986. The rejection of credit was based on the goods being received under Transport Receipt instead of an approved document like the gate pass GP 1 No. 1387.

Issue 5:
For the credit of Rs. 8,760/-, the rejection was based on two grounds: the excess credit taken compared to the duty paid and non-compliance with Public Trade Notice No. 41/87. The excess amount of Rs. 300/- was unexplained, leading to a liability to refund. However, the non-compliance with the Trade Notice was not applicable as the appellants were both the importers and manufacturers.

In conclusion, except for the difference of Rs. 300/- in the credit taken for Rs. 8,760/-, none of the demands raised and confirmed by the lower authority could be sustained. The rejection of credits for Rs. 726/- and Rs. 8,760/- was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.