1998 (2) TMI 317 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Modvat credit availed by the appellants.
2. Reversal and re-crediting of Modvat credit without permission.
3. Adjudication by Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Decision of the Appellate Tribunal to remand the case for de novo adjudication.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Modvat credit availed by the appellants
The appellants availed Modvat credit based on invoices from M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd., Indore. Initially, the Range Superintendent directed the reversal of the credit due to non-compliance with Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Subsequently, it was found that the disputed invoices were in conformity with the rules. The appellants then sought re-crediting of the amount, which was disputed by the authorities, leading to a show cause notice.

Issue 2: Reversal and re-crediting of Modvat credit without permission
The Assistant Commissioner alleged that re-crediting the Modvat credit without prior permission and without producing the triplicate copy of the bill of entry contravened Rule 57G read with Rule 57A. The appellants, however, re-credited the amount on their own after failing to receive a response from the Assistant Commissioner, leading to a demand of duty confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner.

Issue 3: Adjudication by Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals)
The Assistant Commissioner upheld the demand of duty, which was further confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upon appeal by the appellants. The appellants then approached the Appellate Tribunal challenging the decision.

Issue 4: Decision of the Appellate Tribunal to remand the case for de novo adjudication
After hearing both sides, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities' disallowance of re-crediting the Modvat credit solely based on the lack of prior permission. The Tribunal emphasized that the authenticity of the duty-paying documents should have been verified before disallowing the credit solely on the grounds of permission.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the authenticity of the Modvat credit documents.