2000 (10) TMI 357 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Modvat credit under Rule 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
- Admissibility of Modvat credit on various items such as Therminol Oil, Transformer Oil, Clean Flow, Carbon Tetra Chloride, Engg. Rope Sling, Asbestos Cloth/Super Ceramic Blanket, High Vacuum Cryogenic Container of Aluminium, Dust Collection Bags, M.S. Angles, Channels, etc., and shortage of furnace oil and LDO.
- Levy of penalty under Section 11AC.

Analysis:

1. Denial of Modvat Credit:
The appellants appealed against the denial of Modvat credit on certain items under Rule 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Department alleged that the quantity received in the factory was less than the quantity shown in the invoices for which Modvat credit was taken. The appellants argued that most of the denied items were covered by previous Tribunal decisions, asserting their eligibility for Modvat credit.

2. Admissibility of Modvat Credit on Various Items:
a. Therminol Oil, Transformer Oil, Clean Flow, Carbon Tetra Chloride: The appellants argued that these items were eligible for Modvat credit based on previous Tribunal decisions recognizing them as cooling materials or essential items, thus justifying their credit eligibility.
b. Engg. Rope Sling: The appellants contended that Rope Sling is part of material handling equipment, supported by Tribunal decisions, making it eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q.
c. Asbestos Cloth/Super Ceramic Blanket: These items were claimed to be insulation materials, with previous Tribunal decisions supporting insulation materials as eligible for Modvat credit.
d. High Vacuum Cryogenic Container of Aluminium: The Tribunal found that this container was not eligible for Modvat credit as it was used for storing chemicals in a testing laboratory, not meeting the criteria for credit eligibility.
e. Dust Collection Bags, M.S. Angles, Channels, etc.: The Tribunal confirmed the eligibility of these items for Modvat credit, as they were covered by previous Tribunal decisions.

3. Shortage of Furnace Oil and LDO:
The appellants argued that the shortage in furnace oil and LDO occurred due to the nature of the goods being volatile and differences in measuring units during transportation. However, the Tribunal noted that while nominal loss due to natural causes may be allowed in some cases, the facts in this case did not warrant such an allowance. Therefore, excess credit taken on the short quantity of LDO and furnace oil was deemed inadmissible.

4. Levy of Penalty under Section 11AC:
The issue of penalty under Section 11AC was raised, with the appellants contesting any misstatement or suppression of facts. However, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence to support the appellants' claim, leading to the sustainability of the penalty. The penalty amount was reduced considering the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, confirming the admissibility of Modvat credit on certain items while denying it on others, reducing the penalties imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q.