2004 (6) TMI 139 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal sets aside penalties for non-compliance with Central Excise Rules, ruling in favor of appellant

MAFATLAL BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., SURAT

MAFATLAL BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., SURAT - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 49 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Delay in receipt of duty paid goods for reprocessing, failure to give intimation to Range and Divisional Office, delay in dispatch of reprocessed goods, absence of duty paying documents.Analysis:The appeal was against the order-in-Appeal confirming a demand and penalty imposed due to delays and failures in compliance with Central Excise Rules. The appellant was alleged to have delayed in receiving duty paid goods for reprocessing, failed to provide intimation to the Range and Divisional Office as required, and did not mention details of reprocessing or repairs on the goods. The appellant also faced allegations of delay in dispatching reprocessed goods and absence of proper duty paying documents.The Tribunal noted that the main issue was the delay in filing the required intimation for the re-entry of defective duty paid goods in the factory. Although a delay of 10 days was acknowledged, it was unclear whether the goods were available for inspection by Range officers after the delayed declaration was received. Despite delays in processing and seeking an extension, the goods were physically present in the factory for inspection, which should allow the appellant to benefit from Rule 173H.Regarding the delay in dispatching reprocessed goods, it was considered condonable, but the reason for not condoning the delay was not provided. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay in reprocessing should not automatically deny the benefits under Rule 173H without evidence disputing the receipt and reissue of duty paid goods.In response to the absence of duty paying documents, the appellant argued that the returned goods were part of a consignment and provided debit notes and Lorry receipt to establish the duty paid nature. The Tribunal found that the alleged delays in intimating receipt, reprocessing, or return of goods did not disprove the duty paid nature or the reprocessing activity, thus ruling in favor of the appellant.Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and providing consequential relief if necessary.