1998 (2) TMI 280 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit and imposition of penalty by the Collector (Appeals) based on two orders-in-original.
2. Allegations regarding the receipt of defective blooms/billets and scrap, leading to duty demands.
3. Lack of findings on the availability of Modvat credit on endorsed challans issued by consignment agent.
4. Arguments presented by the Advocate for the Appellants regarding precedent cases and discrepancies in the findings.
5. Counterarguments by the Departmental Representative (DR) regarding the admission of receiving only metal scrap and justification for duty demands.
6. Interpretation of Board's circular on Modvat credit availability.
7. Inadequate consideration of evidence and contradictions in findings leading to the decision to remand the case for further review.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals arising from a common order-in-appeal by the Collector (Appeals) confirming two orders-in-original denying Modvat credit and imposing penalties. The allegations revolve around the receipt of defective blooms/billets and scrap, triggering duty demands based on show cause notices. The first notice dated 14-9-1993 raised concerns about Modvat credit availed on defective material, while the second notice dated 28-10-1993 focused on similar issues for a different period. The Dy. Commissioner's order lacked findings on Modvat credit availability but emphasized the absence of facilities to melt the received material. The Commissioner (Appeals) disregarded counter-evidence and upheld the charges primarily based on TISCO's letter.

The Advocate for the Appellants referenced previous judgments to support their arguments, highlighting discrepancies in scrutinizing challans and accepting evidence. The DR countered, emphasizing the admission of receiving metal scrap and justifying duty demands. The discussion extended to the applicability of Board's circular on Modvat credit, with the Advocate citing amendments post-1988. The Tribunal noted the lack of findings on Modvat credit availability and contradictions in the authorities' conclusions, leading to the decision to remand the case for a comprehensive review.

The Tribunal's decision to set aside the previous orders and remand the case for reevaluation was based on the inadequate consideration of evidence, contradictions in findings, and the necessity to address the Modvat credit issue. The Appellants were granted the opportunity to contest the case based on original submissions and evidence, ensuring a fair hearing before the lower authorities for a de novo consideration.