2002 (4) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds duty demand & penalties for contravening Central Excise Rules

ASCO (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI

The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, penalty, and interest imposed on the appellants for contravening Central Excise Rules related to shortages of raw ... Modvat/Cenvat - Shortage of inputs - Demand for Modvat - Limitation Issues:1. Alleged contravention of Rule 57F(1) read with Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Demand of duty on inputs reflected as shortages in balance sheets for the years 1994-95 to 1998-99.3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 57-I(4) and Rule 173Q.4. Charging of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 57-I(5).5. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).Analysis:1. The appellants were manufacturing Solenoid valves and availing Modvat credit on raw materials. The department alleged that shortages of raw materials were not accounted for in Central Excise Registers, leading to suspicions of improper Modvat credit utilization. The show cause notice invoked Rule 57F(1) with Rule 57A for contravention. The appellants argued commercial realities caused shortages, denying deliberate violation. The Joint Commissioner confirmed duty demand, penalty, and interest under relevant provisions.2. The appellants appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who reduced one penalty but upheld the rest. The subsequent appeal challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Tribunal noted the undisputed shortages in balance sheets and the failure to account for them in Central Excise Accounts. The appellants' defense of component mixing during manufacturing was rejected as not justifying failure to expunge Modvat credit. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities' findings on non-condonable shortage violations.3. The plea of time-bar on demand was dismissed due to the absence of reflecting shortages in RG 23 Part A account. While acknowledging the Modvat Rules violation, the Tribunal noted the small percentage of overall shortages over four years, indicating no malice. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, citing lack of mala fide intent and reduced the penalty under Rule 173Q. The lack of findings on the penalty under Rule 57-I(4) led to the Tribunal's decision to reject the appeal with the penalty modification.This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues, arguments, findings, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the alleged contraventions, duty demand, penalties, interest, and the final appeal outcome.