1999 (10) TMI 271 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal orders 50% duty deposit, waiver of penalty, appeal stay, compliance deadline. Follow-up scheduled.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit 50% of the duty amount within eight weeks to proceed with the appeal, with the remaining 50% of the duty ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat on capital goods Issues: Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, Modvat credit on capital goods and inputs, denial of Modvat credit, consideration of shortage in transit, justification for granting stay.Analysis:1. The applicants filed a stay application seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 11,35,000 and penalty of Rs. 15,58,000, along with a stay on the recovery proceedings. The dispute primarily revolved around Modvat credit on various items categorized as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The applicants argued that the Modvat credit should not be denied, emphasizing that the Commissioner did not consider their claim under Rule 57A or the shortage in transit while disallowing the credit. The contention was supported by referencing a Tribunal decision highlighting that Modvat credit should not be regulated based on the weight of the commodity on a specific date, especially in cases of gain or loss due to moisture absorption or evaporation, as long as industry standards are maintained. The applicants sought an unconditional stay based on a strong prima facie case and precedent decisions favoring their position.2. On the contrary, the Revenue, represented by Shri Nayyar, supported the findings of the Authorities below, asserting that a detailed examination of merits and demerits was necessary. The Revenue highlighted previous decisions, such as the case of Guljag Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, to argue that loss by spillage or evaporation does not qualify for Modvat credit under Rule 57D. The Revenue contended that all pleas raised by the assessee had been considered by the Commissioner, as evident from the impugned order, and multiple decisions favored disallowing the Modvat credit.3. After careful consideration of the arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged the need for a detailed examination of merits and demerits, indicating that a thorough assessment would be conducted during the regular hearing. While the Tribunal was not entirely convinced by the applicant's argument of a strong prima facie case, it recognized the credibility of the submissions made by the Chartered Accountant. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit 50% of the duty amount within eight weeks to proceed with the appeal, with the remaining 50% of the duty amount and penalty being waived. The recovery proceedings were stayed pending the appeal, subject to compliance, failing which would result in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal scheduled a follow-up date for compliance reporting and further orders.This detailed analysis encompasses the key arguments, legal considerations, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the stay application, Modvat credit dispute, and the direction for the pre-deposit of duty amount.