2001 (8) TMI 1312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Revenue and I am disposing of all the four appeals by this common order. 3. M/s. Vishal Industries received cast lift arms. They sent these lift arms to Multi Coats, for certain operations and received them back such lift arms in terms of the procedure prescribed under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Multi Coats is a proprietary firm of Shri Gaitonde. Vishal Industries is a partnership firm. Shri Jadhav is the authorised signatory in Vishal Industries. 4. On a surprise visit to the factory of Vishal Industries the officers found 1177 number of lift arms forgings short. 1580 pieces of lift arms were shown to have been sent to the job workers for processing on two dates namely, 13-6-1998 and 17-8-1998. Al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r working upon it. It required the reversal of 10% duty on such movement to the job worker and taking credit again of the debited duty on receipt of the processed goods. The time limit of 180 days has been prescribed for such receipt back without any scope or margin for extension thereof. Simply put, if the inputs were not received back in terms of sub-rule (1) of the said Rule what was required to be debited was the actual credit involved on the inputs sent for processing minus what was already debited in terms of sub-rule 6(1). At all times the inputs remained as input and did not become final goods of the manufacturer. 6. The challans are prescribed under sub-rule (4) of the said Rule. Challans bearing serial numbers 37 and 54 ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3 confirmed in addition to the reversal of the Modvat credit not being sustainable the penalty equivalent under Section 11AC would also not sustain. The penalty imposed under Rule 57-I(4) is actually less than the amount of Modvat credit actually required to be reversed and on this ground it sustains. When the partnership firm is penalised there is no reason for a heavy penalty to be imposed on the partner. The penalty on the partner, Mr. Vizanekar, is reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. Shri Pawar is a clerical employee and he was following the instructions of his superior. Therefore penalty imposed on him is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2,000/. Penalty on Shri Gaitonde has already been reduced considerably and the amount will s....