9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1998 (1) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Disallowance of Modvat credit under Rule 57-I and 57U of Central Excise Rules, 1944; Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
In this case, the appellants appealed against the order disallowing Modvat credit and imposing a penalty under the Central Excise Rules. The issue revolved around the disallowance of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,37,126.20 under Rule 57-I and 57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, along with a penalty of Rs. 2,000 imposed under Rule 173Q of the same rules. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the Modvat credit and that the adjudicating authority had not considered crucial evidence, such as the transporter's copy of invoices, before making the decision. They contended that the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication. The main contention raised by the appellants was that they had produced the transporter's copy of invoices before the adjudicating authority, but the benefit of Modvat credit was denied on the grounds that these documents were not submitted at the time of defacement. The adjudicating authority did not remand the matter to ascertain the factual position, as directed, leading to a lack of proper consideration of evidence. Therefore, the appellants requested a remand for a fresh decision based on the complete evidence presented. Regarding the denial of Modvat credit on capital goods like conveyor belts, welding electrodes, and M.S. Rounds, both the adjudicating authority and the Appellate Authority failed to provide any specific findings on these items, despite confirming the demand. The lack of detailed findings on these capital goods raised concerns about the thoroughness of the decision-making process. As a result, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication. The appellants were to be given an opportunity for a personal hearing, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and well-reasoned decision in the case.
|
