9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1999 (9) TMI 300 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Confirmation of duty demand, penalty imposition, and confiscation of goods. Entitlement to Modvat credit and reworking of assessable value. Verification of duty payment on seized goods and applicability of Rule 173Q(2)(a). Confirmation of duty demand, penalty imposition, and confiscation of goods: The Addl. Collector confirmed the duty demand on the manufacturer and imposed penalties and ordered confiscation of goods. The appellant did not dispute the duty liability but claimed entitlement to Modvat credit and reworking of assessable value. The department argued that no duty was paid, hence no abatement was applicable. The Tribunal directed examination of Modvat credit eligibility and granted abatement based on rules. Referring to a previous judgment, the Tribunal held that reworking of duty for abatement was permissible. Entitlement to Modvat credit and reworking of assessable value: The appellant contended that duty was payable on the goods but claimed entitlement to Modvat credit and reworking of assessable value. The appellant provided a declaration for Modvat credit but lacked acknowledgment. The Tribunal directed examination of Modvat credit eligibility and granted abatement based on rules. Citing a previous judgment, the Tribunal allowed reworking of the assessable value. Verification of duty payment on seized goods and applicability of Rule 173Q(2)(a): The appellant argued against the demand for duty on seized goods, claiming the duty was already paid before clearance. The Tribunal directed verification of this claim based on evidence to be produced by the appellant. The appellant also contended that if duty recalculated is less than Rs. 1 lakh, Rule 173Q(2)(a) would not apply. The Tribunal found it appropriate to re-determine penalties and duty payable based on the gravity of the offense. The appellant was given two months to provide evidence for contentions, and the Commissioner was tasked to adjudicate on the matter. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part, and the impugned order was set aside to the extent discussed, with consequential relief to follow.
|
