Bona fide Modvat credit use and prior RG 23A debit barred penalty and double recovery of the disputed credit amount.

Bona fide taking and utilisation of Modvat credit, supported by declaration under Rule 57G and correspondence with the department, did not justify penalty where the assessee acted without defiance of lawful directions. The Tribunal found the factual basis for penal action absent even if the credit itself was later treated as unavailable, and penalty was therefore not imposed. It also held that once the disputed credit had already been debited in the RG 23A account on utilisation towards duty, the same amount could not be demanded again merely because the finished goods were held non-dutiable. Relief was thus retained against both penalty and recovery of the credit amount.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty was imposable on the assessee for taking and utilising Modvat credit on processed fabrics in the facts of the case. (ii) Whether, after debit of the credit in the RG 23A account on utilisation towards duty, the assessee could be required to pay the amount again.

Issue (i): Whether penalty was imposable on the assessee for taking and utilising Modvat credit on processed fabrics in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The assessee had made a declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and had also approached the departmental authorities on the question of entitlement to credit. The record supported the finding that the assessee acted bona fide and not in defiance of any lawful direction. In such circumstances, even assuming that the credit was not legally available, the factual basis for imposing penalty was absent.

Conclusion: Penalty was not imposable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, after debit of the credit in the RG 23A account on utilisation towards duty, the assessee could be required to pay the amount again.

Analysis: The credit taken had already been reversed by debit when it was utilised for payment of duty on the cleared goods. On that footing, there was no surviving basis to demand the same amount again merely because the underlying finished product was held not liable to duty.

Conclusion: No further recovery could be made again; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the appellate order failed, and the assessee retained relief against both penalty and recovery of the credit amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee acts bona fide on the basis of departmental correspondence and the disputed credit has already been debited on utilisation, penalty and double recovery are not justified.

---