9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd capital goods amounting to (i) Rs. 2,18,18,924/- with imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Rs. 1,91,58,152/- with imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) Rs. 1,11,36,385/- with imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/-; and (iv) Rs. 3,50,35,609/- and Rs. 2,94,72,402/- with imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively. The facts of the cases in brief are as below : 2. Re : File No. 129/PAT/97 The appellant availed Modvat credit on inputs and also on capital goods. Modvat credit so availed on `Toluns" were on the strength of the extra copy of invoices. The appellant also took credit of C.V.D. levied on imported S.K.O. against Bill of Entry which were issued in the name of M/s. I.O.C. Ltd., Barauni Refinery and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acing old GP.1 system with effect from 1-3-1994. (iii) Industry was not very clear about the introduced. Modvat system and also not clear about the quality of documents. (iv) To reduce hardship and manomaly CBE C issued various circulars so that the litigation does not arise. (v) According to the Deptt. the goods received with invoice and Bill of Entry were not proper, but both the invoices were marked `Duplicate for Transporter at the top and maintained colour code. Further, in both, Regd. Dealer/Assessee and Consignee s name and address were clearly printed and materials reached the destination with a proper lawful documents. In support, the appellant cited Board s Circular No. 202/36/96-CX, dated 26-4-1996; 179/13/96-CX. 8, date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Notification No. 1/96-C.E., dated 31-1-1996 read with Trade Notice No. 2/1/NFCE/96, dated 31-1-1996, of Patna Commissionerate. The appellant also submitted reports/returns without filling some of the columns causing difficulties in physical verification of capital goods. They also not submitted D3 declarations of capital goods as required under Rule 57T(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 6. In their defence reply in the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant referred a judgment of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna Commissionerate under 22/MP/Ayukt/97, Dated 6-2-1997; Board s Circular and other case laws pointed out in earlier case as also judgments reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 485 (Tribunal) and 1995 (75) E.L.T. 497 (S.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the judgments reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 948 (Tri.); 1997 (90) E.L.T. 332 (Tri.); 1996 (88) E.L.T. 31 (Mad.); 1995 (75) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.); 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) and the order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of C.E., Patna under 6-C.E. (4/97), dated 31-5-1997. 9. Re : File No. 4/PAT/98 During the period from November, 1996 to January, 1997 the appellant took irregular Modvat credit and utilised the same amounting to Rs. 3,50,35,609/- in respect of inputs. They also did not deposit Rs. 2,94,72,402/- for removing `Naphtha and `LSHS by clearing those without payment of duty as provided under Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 10. In their defence reply, the appellant in the Memorandum of Appeal cited CBE C Circular N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as typing error ? (d) Whether Raw Naptha and LSHS removed without payment of duty should be taken into consideration for allowing/dis-allowing input? (e) Whether Capital Inputs should be allowed without installation certificate? and (f) Whether credit should be given on photo copy of invoices? 14. With regards to import of SKO by M/s. IOC Ltd., I find that there is already a circular issued by Ministry in 1996, and also a Tribunal Decision in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 74 (Tribunal). Moreover, I was also shown earlier decision of the same Assistant Commissioner for an earlier import where Modvat credit was allowed. 15. As regards issue of Transporter s copy by rubber stamping the Invoices, I find the colour (Pink) has been maintained and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that in one case credit has been taken on one photo copy. The appellant has cited 1996 (81) E.L.T. 654 (Tribunal) in Agarwal Metal Works v. CCE, New Delhi. But I find that the two cases are not identical. 20. Not only going by the various Tribunal Judgments but also going by records of orders issued by the same Assistant Commissioner for earlier period, I find that most of the issues are decided cases. However, with regards to the typing mistakes, while taking credit on Liquor Ammonia, I find the typing errors of this type are not acceptable as the date of credit is prior to the invoice and, therefore, this amount is confirmed. I also confirm the amount on which credit has been taken on Xerox copy of invoice. 21. Barring these tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
