2000 (7) TMI 353 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in penalty case under Central Excise Rules

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving penalties imposed for repairing jobs without maintaining statutory records under Rule ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand and penalty Issues:1. Imposition of penalty for repairing job without maintenance of statutory records.2. Demand of duty on exports and Modvat credit.3. Anomalies between sale value and RT-12 returns.4. Non-production of AR-4 documents for goods claimed to be exported.Issue 1:The judgment addresses the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1 crore on the appellant for doing a repairing job without maintaining statutory records as required under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules. The counsel argues that repair does not amount to manufacture, hence no duty liability exists, making the penalty illegal. It is highlighted that the penalty was increased by the Commissioner in a remand proceeding, which was initiated based on the appellant's appeal, not by the department. The Tribunal finds a strong prima facie case in favor of the appellant, ruling that the penalty on repair work is unjustified.Issue 2:Regarding the demand of duty on exports and Modvat credit, the appellants presented export documents and proof of payment to challenge the duty demand on export consignments. The counsel asserts that duty-paid inputs were received in the case of Modvat credit, thus contesting the justification for this demand. The Tribunal notes that the impugned order lacks specificity on which export and Modvat claims do not comply with rules, necessitating further examination during the final hearing.Issue 3:A small amount of Rs. 2000 is demanded due to discrepancies between the sale value and RT-12 returns. The counsel confirms that this amount has already been paid by the assessee, indicating compliance with this demand.Issue 4:The non-production of AR-4 documents, required to verify the removal of goods for export, is raised by the Revenue's counsel to support the duty demand on goods claimed to be exported. The Commissioner's observation that these documents were not submitted is cited as justification for the duty demand. However, the Tribunal, after reviewing the records and submissions, finds a strong case in favor of the assessee and grants a stay on the duties and penalties imposed by the impugned order. The requirement for pre-deposit is waived, and the Revenue is restrained from taking recovery action during the appeal's pendency.