Modvat/Cenvat credit reversal for moulds and dies sent to job worker without permission; penalty waived absent mala fide conduct.

Removal of moulds and dies to a job worker without the Commissioner's permission, and failure to bring them back within the prescribed period, attracted reversal of Modvat/Cenvat credit under Rule 57S because the rule makes credit payable when the goods are not returned in time. The demand for reversal was upheld. Penalty, however, required deliberate defiance of law or mala fide conduct; on the facts recorded, the breach was treated as procedural rather than contumacious, so penalty was waived and its deletion sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reversal of Modvat/Cenvat credit was payable on moulds and dies removed to a job worker without prior permission and not brought back within the stipulated period; (ii) Whether penalty was liable to be imposed for such removal.

Issue (i): Whether reversal of Modvat/Cenvat credit was payable on moulds and dies removed to a job worker without prior permission and not brought back within the stipulated period.

Analysis: Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits removal of moulds and dies to a job worker only with the Commissioner's permission and on undertaking to bring them back within three months or within such extended period as may be permitted. The rule further provides that if the moulds and dies are not received back within that period, duty equivalent to the credit taken becomes payable. The removal in the present case was made without permission and the goods were not brought back within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The demand for reversal of credit was /valid and was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was liable to be imposed for such removal.

Analysis: Penalty is warranted where there is deliberate defiance of law or mala fide intention. On the facts found, the goods remained with the job worker and the breach was treated as procedural rather than contumacious, so the requisite element for penalty was absent.

Conclusion: Penalty was not liable to be imposed and the waiver of penalty was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The order confirming duty demand was maintained, while the deletion of penalty was also maintained, with both appeals failing.

Ratio Decidendi: Removal of capital goods to a job worker without the required permission and without return within the prescribed time attracts reversal of the credit taken, but penalty requires a finding of deliberate evasion or mala fide conduct.

---