Compounded levy and tariff duty: non-notified goods stayed dutiable, Modvat credit was remanded, and penalty was reduced.

Non-notified goods cleared while the assessee was under the compounded levy scheme remained chargeable at the normal tariff rate, because the goods were outside Section 3A coverage and the demand related to actual clearances. The Modvat credit claim on inputs required fresh examination, with the assessee to be given an opportunity to produce proof of duty-paid inputs and the claim to be reconsidered in light of the applicable Larger Bench ruling and notification. Penalty under the Central Excise Rules was upheld in principle for the disputed clearances, but the quantum was reduced as excessive in the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty at tariff rates was payable on non-notified goods cleared during the period when the assessee was under the compounded levy scheme; (ii) whether the assessee's claim for Modvat credit on inputs required re-examination; (iii) whether the penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether duty at tariff rates was payable on non-notified goods cleared during the period when the assessee was under the compounded levy scheme.

Analysis: The goods in question were not notified under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the purpose of compounded levy, even though the assessee had been informed by the department at the outset that tariff duty was payable on their clearances. The assessee did not file any revised declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or otherwise dispute the departmental stand during the relevant period. The demand related to actual clearances of non-notified goods, not to the annual capacity determination under the scheme.

Conclusion: Duty at the appropriate tariff rates was payable on the non-notified goods, and the demand was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's claim for Modvat credit on inputs required re-examination.

Analysis: The Commissioner rejected the claim for lack of procedural compliance and evidence of duty-paid inputs. The claim, however, needed reconsideration in the light of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision and Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) dated 09-02-1999, with an opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence of duty payment on inputs.

Conclusion: The claim for Modvat credit was remanded for fresh examination.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The clearances were made despite departmental intimation regarding liability, so penalty was justified under Rules 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, the penalty imposed was considered excessive in the facts of the case, and the absence of any allegation or finding of intent to evade duty was relevant to the quantum.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs.

Final Conclusion: The assessee remained liable for duty on the non-notified goods, but the Modvat credit issue required reconsideration and the penalty stood substantially reduced, with the matter remanded only for limited re-determination of credit and consequential duty.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods not covered by the compounded levy scheme remain chargeable at the normal tariff rate despite the assessee's participation in the scheme, while procedural and evidentiary defects in a Modvat claim may warrant remand for reconsideration and penalty may be moderated where the infraction is established but the original quantum is excessive.

---