Appellant denied credit for unauthorized goods removal, penalty upheld by Tribunal.

The appellant was not entitled to credit for goods removed without permission from the Commissioner of Central Excise. The penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed justified as the necessary permission was not obtained before the removal of goods, leading to delays in delivering completed job work. The Assistant Commissioner's decision to refuse credit and impose the penalty was upheld without interference by the Appellate Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to credit under Rule 57Q read with Rule 57T for goods removed without permission from the Commissioner of Central ExciseRs.
2. Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant is justifiableRs.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Credit
The appellant argued that the goods were urgently required by their job worker, and they had sought permission from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I along with the necessary undertaking. However, it was noted that no permission was actually obtained before the removal of inputs from the factory as required by Rule 57S(8). The judge found that the appellants did not fulfill the condition of obtaining permission from the Commissioner before removal of goods, leading to the conclusion that they were not entitled to the credit of Rs. 1,08,000 availed by them under the relevant rules. As a result, the Assistant Commissioner's decision to refuse the credit was upheld, and the order was deemed appropriate without any need for interference by the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue 2: Penalty Imposition
The appellant contended that the delay in sending the goods to the job worker was not intentional and that the goods were returned to the factory within a year. However, the respondent emphasized that the requirement of obtaining permission from the Commissioner before removal of inputs was not met, and therefore, the penalty was justified. The judge concurred with the respondent's argument, stating that the delay caused by not obtaining the necessary permission could have led to a delay in delivering the completed job work to the appellant's customer. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deemed justifiable, and the appeal was rejected.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the decision that the appellant was not entitled to credit for goods removed without permission from the Commissioner of Central Excise and that the penalty imposed was justified due to the failure to comply with the necessary regulations.

---