9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit on different inputs under [Rule] 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. On a visit of the Central Excise Officers to their unit on 17-11-1993 it was found that though their Stock Register showed nil quantity of aluminium rods, as per the recorded book balance for the said item in RG 23A Part I, a quantity of 71,262 kgs. of aluminium rods should have been available. On further scrutiny of RG 23A Part II of the duty paying documents, it was noticed that the appellants had availed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 8,85,441/- in respect of the aforesaid 71,262 kgs. of aluminium rods. 4. They were issued a SCN alleging that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Rule 57A and 57F inasmuch as they had not utilised 71,262 kgs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after payment of duty. He submitted that the appellants had furnished evidence to show that the input had in fact been used for the manufacture of finished product during the material period by showing the actual number of transformers produced during the period and the consumption of aluminium rods in the production of the said transformers had also been clearly worked out on the law of averages. Further, the Department had also not brought on record any evidence to prove clandestine removal of the goods. This would clearly show that the goods have been consumed in the manufacture of their final product. The only lapse on the part of the appellants was that the consumption of the items had not been shown in the accounts in Form RG 23A Part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had stated that the inputs, namely, aluminium rods could not be used in the manufacture of transformers. Aluminium rods were required to be converted into DPC aluminium wire or strips before it could be used in the manufacture of transformers. The Manager had also stated that since the appellants did not have the facility of converting aluminium rods into aluminium wires and strips, the aluminium rods were sent for job work outside. Ld. SDR drew attention to the fact that in such cases the appellants were required to follow the procedure laid down under Rule 57F(2) which specifically provided that where inputs on which credit had been taken are to be removed, intimation has to be given to the Assistant Commissioner concerned. Appellants ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tity of aluminium rod had been used in the manufacture of the final products or that the appellants had no mala fide intention of availing of impermissible Modvat credit does not carry conviction. As was submitted by ld. SDR relying on AIR 1977 SC 2271 in R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, in cases where an assessee fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of the law, especially in a taxing statute, the requirement of establishing mala fide intention does not arise. Having regard to these facts we find that the case law relied on by the appellants is not of much help to the appellants. We also observe that the Collector (Appeals) has already reduced the penalty from Rs. 3 to 2.5 lakhs. 9. Taking all the relevant factors into consideration w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
