Extended limitation and MODVAT credit recovery apply where suppression is shown; penalty survives despite citation of the wrong provision.

Suppression of material particulars justified invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the demand for reversal of MODVAT credit was held within time. On the merits, the recorded statements and surrounding evidence showed that the tin plates were of higher thickness and not used in manufacture, making the MODVAT credit wrongly availed and recoverable from the company. Penalty was sustainable against the company under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and a wrong statutory reference in the notice did not invalidate it where the factual basis and opportunity to defend were clear; penalties on the individual respondents were not restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the demand for reversal of MODVAT credit in respect of the disputed inputs was barred by limitation; (iii) whether the MODVAT credit of Rs. 23,87,575 was wrongly availed and recoverable; (iv) whether penalty was leviable on the company and on the individual respondents, including where the show cause notice referred to a different penal provision.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Tribunal's order was amenable to judicial review, and the availability of an alternate statutory route did not bar the High Court from examining the legality of the impugned order. The objection to maintainability was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for reversal of MODVAT credit in respect of the disputed inputs was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The material showed non-disclosure of the specifications of the tin plates and suppression of the relevant information from the department. On those facts, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held applicable, and the demand was treated as within time.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the MODVAT credit of Rs. 23,87,575 was wrongly availed and recoverable.

Analysis: The statements recorded under Section 14(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, together with the surrounding record, were treated as having evidentiary value and as showing that the relevant tin plates were of higher thickness and were not used in the manufacture of the final product. The Tribunal's contrary conclusion was held unsustainable, and the company was found liable to repay the disputed credit amount in addition to the amount already upheld.

Conclusion: The MODVAT credit was wrongly availed and was recoverable from the company.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty was leviable on the company and on the individual respondents, including where the show cause notice referred to a different penal provision.

Analysis: Penalty on the company was sustained because the statutory power to impose penalty existed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and mere reference in the notice to another provision did not vitiate the action where the factual foundation and opportunity of defence were present. However, the penalties on the individual respondents were not restored because the Court accepted the Tribunal's view that interference was unwarranted on the facts as to their role.

Conclusion: Penalty was sustainable against the company, but not against the individual respondents.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was interfered with only to the extent of the company's liability for reversal of MODVAT credit and corresponding penalty, while the setting aside of penalties on the individual respondents was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Suppression of material particulars justified invocation of the extended limitation period, and a penalty imposed under the correct statutory power is not invalid merely because the show cause notice cited a different provision, provided the party had notice of the factual basis and an opportunity to contest it.

---