Modvat credit on unused inputs denied, while penalty was reduced for disproportionate severity.

Modvat credit was held inadmissible where inputs were found short soon after receipt, the register entry was missing, and an unretracted statement of the authorised signatory supported unauthorised removal without use in manufacture. On those facts, credit on inputs not used in or in relation to manufacture was irregular and properly disallowed. The penalty under Rule 173Q was also examined on proportionality: although a penalty was warranted because the lapse stood admitted, a penalty equal to the duty was considered excessive, so it was reduced to Rs. 10,000.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Modvat credit taken on the inputs was admissible when the quantity was found short and the inputs were treated as removed without being used in manufacture; (ii) whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q required reduction in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): whether Modvat credit taken on the inputs was admissible when the quantity was found short and the inputs were treated as removed without being used in manufacture.

Analysis: The inputs had been received in the factory and were found short when the officers visited shortly thereafter. The authorised signatory's statement, which was not retracted, showed that he was responsible for receipt of raw material, production and excise compliance, and that the relevant entry in the register had not been made. On that basis, the clearance of the inputs without duty and without use in manufacture was treated as admitted. Since the credit had been taken on goods not used in or in relation to manufacture of final products, it was irregular and not admissible under the Modvat scheme.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Modvat credit was upheld and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q required reduction in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Although the offence stood admitted and some penalty was warranted, the imposition of a penalty equal to the duty amount was considered excessive in the circumstances. The record did not support a mandatory penalty of that magnitude, and the nature of the lapse called for a lesser amount.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000 and the assessee obtained partial relief on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The decision sustained denial of Modvat credit but moderated the penalty, leaving the appellate order intact except for reduction in the quantum of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit is not admissible where the credited inputs are not shown to have been used in or in relation to manufacture and the contemporaneous evidence, including an unretracted statement of the authorised signatory, supports the finding of unauthorised removal; however, penalty under Rule 173Q must still be proportionate to the nature of the lapse.

---