1993 (9) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat Credit and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q.
2. Applicability of extended period for recovery and penalty under Rule 173Q.
3. Assessment of whether the appellants wilfully availed excess Modvat Credit.
4. Applicability of the time limit for demand of duty.
5. Imposition and justification of penalty under Rule 173Q.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the disallowance of Modvat Credit of Rs. 91,428.29 and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Rule 173Q by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta II. The appellants, M/s Fuji Reprographics Industries, claimed that they had not suppressed any information and had acted bona fide. The issue revolved around whether the extended period of 5 years applied for recovery and penalty under Rule 173Q. The Additional Collector found that the appellants had availed Modvat Credit in excess of the permissible amount over a prolonged period, which constituted a contravention of rules and notification. The demand for duty and penalty was upheld based on the wilful excess credit availed by the appellants.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that although the appellants had indeed taken more Modvat Credit than entitled, there was no evidence of wilful suppression. The appellants had provided full details in their statements and declarations, and the Assistant Collector had granted permission based on the information provided. The Tribunal disagreed with the view that the excess credit was wilfully availed, stating that the mistake was not deliberate but an error or misconstruction. Therefore, the normal period of six months applied for the demand of duty, and the appeal succeeded on the ground of limitation.

Regarding the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was justified as the appellants had wrongly taken credit of duty in excess of the permissible amount. The penalty provision did not require proof of knowledge or belief for wrong taking of credit. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty, considering it a civil obligation to remedy the tax delinquency. The quantum of penalty was deemed appropriate given the duty involved, and thus, the imposition of penalty was sustained. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed concerning the demand of duty but dismissed regarding the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q.