Deemed Modvat credit on clearly non-duty-paid scrap was denied, limitation failed, and penalty was waived.

Scrap clearly recognisable as non-duty paid was held ineligible for deemed Modvat credit, so the credit demand was sustained. Prior objections recorded in RT-12 assessment remarks and repeated correspondence were treated as effective notice of the department's case, so the limitation challenge failed. Although the demand survived, penalty was set aside because the contemporaneous understanding of deemed credit on scrap was considered ambiguous, making the penal consequence excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether deemed Modvat credit was admissible on scrap clearly recognisable as non-duty paid; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the prior correspondence and RT-12 remarks constituted effective notice; (iii) whether penalty was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether deemed Modvat credit was admissible on scrap clearly recognisable as non-duty paid

Analysis: The scrap consisted of broken pieces of old and used machinery parts and similar iron and steel articles. Applying the Larger Bench ratio, input material which has not suffered duty and is clearly recognisable as non-duty paid does not qualify for deemed credit. The substantive objection to the credit therefore stood answered against the appellants.

Conclusion: The demand on merits was sustainable and the credit was wrongly availed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the prior correspondence and RT-12 remarks constituted effective notice

Analysis: The Department had recorded objections in the RT-12 assessment memorandum and followed them with letters repeatedly requiring reversal of the credit. The appellants were thus made aware of the allegation and the basis of the demand within the normal period. The later show cause notice was treated as the culmination of that earlier process rather than the first intimation of the charge. On these facts, the extended period objection was not accepted.

Conclusion: The demand was not time-barred and the limitation challenge failed.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was warranted

Analysis: Although the credit demand survived, the matter involved some ambiguity in the contemporaneous understanding of deemed credit on scrap. In view of that grey area, the penal consequence was considered excessive.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The credit demand was upheld, the plea of limitation was rejected, and the penalty was removed, leaving the appellants liable only for the confirmed duty consequence.

Ratio Decidendi: Scrap that is clearly recognisable as non-duty paid is ineligible for deemed Modvat credit, and prior departmental objection conveyed through RT-12 scrutiny and follow-up correspondence can amount to effective notice within the normal limitation period.

---