1999 (11) TMI 422 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57F(17)(b) regarding Modvat credit reversal.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC.
3. Compliance with RG-1 register requirements for unfinished goods.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 57F(17)(b) regarding Modvat credit reversal:

The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing bulk drugs, who were required to reverse Modvat credit under Rule 57F(17)(b) from 1-3-1997. The jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities held that even semi-finished goods required Modvat credit reversal. The appellants made declarations and reversed entries for goods in semi-finished stage. The Commissioner, Central Excise, confiscated certain goods and imposed penalties for non-compliance. The advocate argued that the goods were within the factory premises for processing, citing legal provisions and expert opinions. The Tribunal found that non-entry in RG-1 register did not imply clandestine removal, especially when goods were still in the factory and processes were pending. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalties, allowing the appeal.

Issue 2: Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC:

The Commissioner confiscated goods and imposed penalties under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC due to non-compliance with Modvat credit reversal requirements. The advocate argued that the goods were not fully processed and legal provisions necessitated certain details before market release. The Tribunal, considering the absence of attempts for clandestine removal and pending processes, found no justification for confiscation or penalties. Citing a precedent regarding goods not meeting legal requirements, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

Issue 3: Compliance with RG-1 register requirements for unfinished goods:

The appellants failed to enter certain goods in the RG-1 register, leading to the confiscation and penalties. The Tribunal noted that the goods were included in declarations as unfinished products, indicating no intent for clandestine removal. Relying on legal provisions and precedents emphasizing legal requirements for fully manufactured goods, the Tribunal found no basis for confiscation or penalties. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with relief for the appellants.

---