1994 (2) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for availment of modvat credit on certain inputs.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay was against the order-in-appeal regarding the eligibility of the Respondents for availing modvat credit on specific inputs. The issue revolved around the compliance with Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules by the suppliers of the input materials, who cut the aluminium coils into sheets without obtaining prior permission. The Asstt. Collector contended that the deliberate omission of obtaining permission rendered the modvat credit inadmissible, leading to a demand for duty and imposition of a penalty. However, the Collector (Appeals) held that as long as a correlation between the coils and sheets could be established at the time of dispatch, and the goods were endorsed on Gate Passes, the modvat credit should not be disallowed. The Collector (Appeals) also directed a de novo determination of the duty demand related to the alleged irregular modvat credit availed by the Respondents.

The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. It was noted that the Gate Passes were endorsed in the name of the Respondents, and the allegation of improper endorsement was not substantiated. The main contention was that although the Gate Passes and declarations mentioned aluminium coils, the actual receipt was in the form of aluminium sheets due to cutting by the suppliers. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as a nexus between the sheets and duty-paid coils could be established, and the goods were transferred with suitable endorsements, the procedural non-compliance of Rule 57F(2) should not bar the substantive benefit of modvat credit. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Collector (Appeals) decision to allow the modvat credit.

Regarding the duty demand related to a wrong debit in RG 23A Part II, the Tribunal observed that the full facts were not adequately reflected in the orders. It was clarified that if the demand was due to the same issue of modvat credit reversal, it was not sustainable. However, if it pertained to irregular credit and debit in the modvat account unrelated to the issue, a de novo consideration was warranted. Since there was no cross-appeal from the Respondents on this matter, the Tribunal maintained the de novo consideration ordered by the Collector (Appeals).

Lastly, concerning the penalty for violating Rule 57F(2), the Tribunal concurred with the admission of non-compliance by the Respondents and upheld the penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector as reasonable. Therefore, the appeal from the Revenue was disposed of, affirming the decisions on modvat credit eligibility, duty demand, and penalty.