1994 (5) TMI 95 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns irregular credit demand due to incomplete declarations, emphasizes timely corrective actions

The appeal was allowed as the Tribunal found that the irregular availing of Modvat Credit was not due to suppression of facts or wilful misstatements. The ... Demand for reversal of - Modvat Credit Issues:1. Irregular availing of Modvat Credit2. Suppression of facts in declaration3. Applicability of limitation periodAnalysis:Issue 1: Irregular availing of Modvat CreditThe appeal was filed against an order confirming a demand for irregularly availing Modvat Credit. The appellant argued that they had submitted general declarations due to the novelty of the Modvat Scheme at the time. They contended that subsequent deficiencies in declarations should not retroactively affect their past credit availment. The appellant highlighted that their monthly returns had been duly checked and approved by officers, indicating no objection to their credit availment. The appellant also distinguished their case from precedent cases, emphasizing that the notice was barred by limitation.Issue 2: Suppression of facts in declarationThe respondent argued that the appellant's declaration did not cover the specific inputs in question, citing previous cases where broad descriptions were deemed insufficient. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Additional Collector's conclusion of suppression, noting that the incomplete declaration was known to the Department, and corrective action could have been taken if necessary. The Tribunal emphasized that the incompleteness of the declaration did not amount to wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, as the authorities were aware of the situation.Issue 3: Applicability of limitation periodThe Tribunal concluded that the longer limitation period was not applicable in this case, as the incomplete declarations did not result in undue benefits or wilful misstatements. The Tribunal found that any deficiencies in subsequent letters should not invalidate past credit availment. It was emphasized that the charge of suppression would only apply if non-admissible inputs were availed due to incomplete declarations, which was not the case here. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order confirming the demand for irregular credit availment was set aside.This judgment underscores the importance of complete declarations for availing credits under the Modvat Scheme and clarifies that incompleteness alone does not constitute suppression of facts. It also highlights the significance of timely corrective actions by the Department in cases of incomplete declarations to avoid retrospective implications on past credit availment.