Modvat credit removal without repair proof sustains duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty.

Removal of machines on which Modvat credit had been taken, without proper entry, intimation or evidence of repair, justified duty demand under Rule 57AC. The records did not support the claim that the goods had been sent to another unit for repair: the challans were unclear, the description was inconsistent with rejection, and there was no corresponding entry in either unit's records. As the machines were not returned within a reasonable time and credit was not reversed or duty paid at removal, the demand was sustainable. The same facts also supported confiscation, redemption fine and penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were justified where machines on which Modvat credit had been taken were removed from the factory and allegedly sent for repair without proper entry or intimation under Rule 57AC.

Analysis: The machines were found absent from the factory during inspection and the record did not support the plea that they had been sent to the NOIDA unit for repair. The challans did not clearly mention repair, the description of the goods was inconsistent with the plea of rejection, and there was no evidence of proper entries in the assessee's records or in the recipient unit's records. The goods were not received back within a reasonable time, no material showed genuine repair activity, and the circumstances indicated removal of the machines to another unit without following the prescribed procedure. Since the credit was not reversed and duty was not paid at the time of removal, the demand was held sustainable. The same conduct also justified confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Conclusion: The duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were upheld against the assessee.

---