TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... They availed Modvat credit on these items. During transit, a part of the goods were damaged. The main charge of the Revenue is that knowing that the goods were damaged, they were also issued for production with an intention to avail the Modvat credit illegally. The Revenue initiated proceedings by issue of Show Cause Notice dated 27-5-97. The proceedings culminated in an order dated 30-3-99 by the Commissioner. When the appellants appealed to the Tribunal against the Commissioner's order, the Tribunal in Final Order No. 914/2000, dated 17-7-2000 remanded the matter to the Original Authority with a direction to give a finding with regard to the fact that the authorities had knowledge of the damaged items in view of the End Use Certificate i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining this issue alone, she has extended the scope of the case by going into unrelated issues. She has gone into the question as to whether material transaction receipts which were produced to get the end-use certificates showed the entire quantity including the damaged portion as consumed. Based on this she has arrived at the conclusion that the end-use certificates were obtained by mis-leading the department with an intention to avail irregular Modvat credit on the total quantity of inputs. (ii) The adjudicating authority has arbitrarily come to the conclusion that the end-use certificates were issued without verifying all the records including the Stores Receipt Advice and the appellants had o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inputs have become waste prior to the actual start of the manufacturing process, credit cannot be denied on this account. (v) The adjudicating authority has failed to take into account the contention of the appellants that duty was not claimed with the Insurance Company towards the damaged goods. (vi) The extended period is not invokable and unwarranted as the Department was always aware of the procedure followed by the appellants. (vii) The remand order imposes higher penalty under Rule 173Q as against the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- originally imposed by the Commissioner in the Order dated 30-3-99. This is clearly without jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BPL Display Devices Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that the exemption notification No 13/97-Cus. exempting specified raw material imported into India for use in the manufacture of specified goods is applicable even for the goods damaged during transit and could not be used for manufacture of picture tubes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the word 'for use' is to be construed to mean intended for use'. 4. The learned SDR argued that there is no question of giving Modvat credit to the goods which were not put in use. He said that the case law relied on by the appellants is distinguishable as the same is in respect of....