2000 (6) TMI 544 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Confirms Duty Demand on Polypropylene Granules, Overturns Denial of Credit

PAHARPUR PLASTICS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

PAHARPUR PLASTICS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 252 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Demand of duty on polypropylene granules.2. Disallowance of credit for delayed declaration.3. Disallowance of credit for specific items.4. Disallowance of credit for excess amount.5. Denial of credit for sweep waste granules.Issue 1 - Demand of Duty on Polypropylene Granules:The case involved a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 4,65,234.05 on 45,000 Kgs. of polypropylene granules cleared without debiting duty. The appellant argued that they had not availed any Modvat credit on the quantity in question as they were importing duty-free granules under an Advance Licencing Scheme. However, the Assistant Collector's Order-in-Original revealed discrepancies in the stock balance and receipts of granules, contradicting the appellant's claim. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation unacceptable, as the stock quantities did not align with the duty-free import claim. Consequently, the demand for duty was confirmed.Issue 2 - Disallowance of Credit for Delayed Declaration:In Appeal No. E/2688/99, a credit of Rs. 12,528.41 was disallowed due to a delayed declaration filed after the prescribed period. The appellant argued that the delay occurred immediately after the introduction of a credit scheme on capital goods and cited precedents where delays were overlooked. Relying on previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal set aside the denial of credit, emphasizing the genuineness of duty paying documents and the absence of contrary decisions brought by the Department.Issue 3 - Disallowance of Credit for Specific Items:Credit of Rs. 4,576/- was disallowed for Hytherm 500 and HDPE Retreader as the appellants allegedly did not file declarations for these items. The appellants contended that these items were covered under declarations for machine oil and thinner. Since the Revenue did not rebut this claim, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation and overturned the denial of credit.Issue 4 - Disallowance of Credit for Inputs Declaration:A credit of Rs. 40,769/- on thinner and double-sided adhesive tapes was disallowed as these items were declared as capital goods. The appellants argued that these items should be considered as inputs under Rule 57A. Agreeing with the appellants, the Tribunal allowed the credit, recognizing the items as inputs eligible for credit.Issue 5 - Denial of Excess Credit Amount:A credit of Rs. 117/- was disallowed for excess credit against a specific invoice. The appellants did not dispute this denial, leading the Tribunal to uphold the decision. However, the Tribunal determined that the appellants were eligible for the remaining amount of Rs. 57,873.41, partially allowing this appeal.Issue 6 - Denial of Credit for Sweep Waste Granules:In Appeal No. E/2689/99, a credit of Rs. 80,141/- on sweep waste granules was denied due to discrepancies in the quantity cleared and the availed credit. The appellants failed to substantiate their claim that the quantity was from stock without Modvat credit. As the quantity was recorded in RG 23A Part II, indicating credit availed, the Tribunal upheld the denial of credit, rejecting the appeal.