TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (4) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lore Modvat Credit Rs. 31,36,264/- & equal penalty. 2. E/535/2002 Mr. Prakash Chand Mehta, MD, RPPL -do- Penalty Rs. 3,00,000/- 3. E/811/2002 Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal, RPPL -do- Penalty Rs. 30,000/- 4. E/466/2002 M/s. Sunrise Freight Movers Ltd. (SFML) -do- Penalty Rs. 3,00,000/- 5. E/467/2002 Mr. Ramakant Saraf, MD, SFML -do- Penalty Rs. 3,00,000/- 2. In the impugned order the adjudicating authority has disallowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 31,36,264/- availed by the M/s. Rishi Polymach Pvt. Ltd., Mysore (M/s. RPPL for short) under Rule 57-I(1)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. She imposed equal penalty under Rule 57-I(4)/57A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; Wrong availment of Modvat credit from 15-6-2000 to 19-6-2000 and on 28-5-2000 on account of discrepancy between HD 53 EA 010 PA and without PA and E/45A/033 0479050 grades Para 7 of Annexure to Show Cause Notice - Rs. 2,20,347.00 (c) Modvat credit disallowed on account of non-use of imported materials indicated in Balance Sheet - Rs. 24,81,895.00. Thus total amount of Rs. 31,26,264.00 is disallowed. (2) The main allegation against the appellants is that they availed Modvat credit on certain inputs which were not actually received in their factory. In fact they used a lesser grade granules than what was shown....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; No test was conducted at the appellant's premises nor the process of manufacture was ever studied. (5) If the inputs were not fit for manufacture, there is no reason as to why the same should be supplied by M/s. IPCL. (6) The appellants sent samples of 53180 and other material to Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology, Mysore and their report proves the suitability of the grades for the manufacture of pipes. (7) There is no positive evidence in favour of the presumption about use of the grades in question in the manufacture of HDPE pipes. (8) &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating authority. It is well settled position that no duty could be demanded based on solely on balance sheet figures. (15) The adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate the fact that the granule HD 53 010 PA and HD 53 010 without PA possesses the same characteristics and same application as clearly deposed by Shri Singhal. The minor difference in the price is inconsequential. Hence, the finding of the learned Commissioner that the goods mentioned in the invoices were not received is not correct. (16) The adjudicating authority failed to appreciate the facts that M/s. IPCL have not at all informed the appellants about the introduction of any new variety from February, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned only description of HD 53 010 grade, the same clearly proves that the appellants were receiving the materials as ordered by them based on the catalogue. Hence no adverse inference can be drawn based on the statement of Kum. Sheela and Shri Vasuki. (21) A mere fact that the transporter obliged the appellants to transport as per their request, by itself, does not amount to abetting/assisting in any irregular availment of credit. The transporter has not any vested interest at all in this regard. (22) The adjudicating authority has failed to note that if the imported inputs has not been used during the respective years, the production of pipes as recorded in balance sheet wou....