Limitation and arguable personal penalty supported waiver of penalty deposit and stay in a Modvat credit dispute.

Prima facie, waiver of deposit and stay of recovery were considered justified where penalties arose from alleged wrongful utilisation of Modvat credit on inputs used in goods cleared without duty, and the credit had already been reversed. The notice was issued long after the period of utilisation, supporting the view that the limitation principle under Section 11A could apply by analogy to Rule 57-I(4) in this pre-insertion context. The personal penalty under Rule 209A was treated as arguable, and these factors led to waiver of penalty deposit and stay of recovery in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether waiver of deposit and stay of recovery of penalties were warranted in view of the prima facie applicability of limitation and the arguable nature of personal penalty.

Analysis: The applications concerned penalties arising from alleged wrongful utilisation of Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared without duty. The credit had been reversed and the notice was issued long after the period of utilisation. On a prima facie view, the principle that the limitation provision under Section 11A does not apply where duty evasion pre-dated its incorporation in the statute was considered applicable to Rule 57-I(4), with which it corresponded. The question of penalty under Rule 209A was treated as arguable, and the reversal of credit was also taken into account.

Conclusion: Deposit of the penalties was waived and recovery was stayed in favour of the assessee.

---