1997 (1) TMI 295 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of Modvat credit due to procedural non-compliance
- Enforcement of correct proforma for declaration
- Disallowance of credit on scrap due to missing duty paying documents

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Modvat credit due to procedural non-compliance
The case involved the appellants filing a declaration in 1986 that was not in the correct form as per Rule 57G. The department issued a show cause notice in 1992 seeking recovery of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 7,77,090 for various inputs. The adjudication disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000. On appeal, the appellants were unsuccessful, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the main reason for disallowing the credit was procedural non-compliance in the declaration made by the appellants. However, the Tribunal held that denying a substantive benefit like Modvat credit for a procedural deviation known to the department for over six years was unjust. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand for the amount and directing them to file the declaration in the correct proforma for future compliance.

Issue 2: Enforcement of correct proforma for declaration
The Tribunal emphasized that while the Revenue could enforce the correct proforma of declaration prospectively to ensure future compliance, it was not justified to deny Modvat credit for past instances of procedural non-compliance, especially when the department was aware of the deviation for an extended period. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, highlighting the importance of not penalizing the appellants for procedural errors known to the department for a considerable time.

Issue 3: Disallowance of credit on scrap due to missing duty paying documents
During the proceedings, it was noted that an amount of Rs. 4,836 on scrap during May 1992 was disallowed not only due to the wrong proforma declaration but also because the original duty paying documents were not submitted by the appellants. The appellants explained that the duty paying documents were available but could not be produced due to the closure of the factory. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' undertaking to produce the duty paying documents and ruled that the credit amount would be available only upon submission of the required documents. Failure to produce the documents would render the credit inadmissible, requiring the appellants to pay the amount by adjustment in PLA or other means.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the demand for Modvat credit, and directed the appellants to comply with the correct proforma for future declarations. The issue regarding the disallowance of credit on scrap was contingent upon the submission of the duty paying documents by the appellants.