1999 (4) TMI 356 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Alleged wrongful utilization of Modvat credit, incorrect declaration leading to duty demand, penalty imposition, interpretation of declaration under Modvat scheme.

In this case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, the appellants were alleged to have wrongfully utilized Modvat credit by using material in the manufacture of final goods before filing a declaration, resulting in a duty amounting to Rs. 2,70,807.29 being recoverable. The Assistant Collector found discrepancies between the goods declared and those actually received, leading to the confirmation of the demand and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,000. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that brand name goods could not be allowed if the declaration contained a different brand name. The appellants argued that a broad description should suffice, citing previous Tribunal judgments and asserting the absence of intent to defraud revenue due to the payment of duty. The Department, however, supported the Collector's observations of specific instances where goods were not declared as per the declaration.

Upon hearing the submissions, the Tribunal noted specific instances of discrepancies in the declaration, such as Industrial Heater versus Electric Heater, pneumatic appliances, and taps and cocks falling under the same main heading but different sub-headings. Referring to a previous Tribunal judgment and the principle that initial errors under the Modvat scheme were viewed leniently, the Tribunal held that the declaration was adequate to cover the contested goods. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, applying the principles established in the cited judgments and emphasizing the lenient approach towards initial errors under the Modvat scheme.

The judgment highlights the importance of accurate declarations under the Modvat credit scheme, the consequences of wrongful utilization of credit, and the lenient approach towards initial errors in declarations. It underscores the need for consistency between the declared goods and those actually received, while also recognizing the applicability of broad descriptions to cover inputs under the scheme. The decision serves as a precedent for interpreting declarations under the Modvat scheme and emphasizes the intent behind such declarations in determining liability for duty payments and penalties.