Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 522 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding contravention of Central Excise Rules. 2. Allegation of passing Modvat credit illegally and imposition of duty and penalty. 3. Validity of invoices issued under Rule 57G/57T for passing Modvat credit. 4. Confirmation of duty payment and penalty imposition by original adjudicating authority. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding contravention of Central Excise Rules. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter Heading 85 of CETA, 1985 and received two show cause notices cum demand notices. The first notice was issued for contravention of Rule 51A read with Rule 173H for receiving excisable duty paid goods without prior permission and not being registered as a dealer. The second notice was for contravention of Rule 174 read with Rule 57GG for clearing duty paid goods without proper registration. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that the appellant was not eligible to issue modvat invoices under Rule 57G without being a registered dealer. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the appellant lacked merits. 2. The appellant contended that the procedure of passing Modvat credit to their customer was not legal and they were not liable to pay duty. The second show cause notice alleged that the Modvat credit was wrongly passed on to a customer, requiring payment under Sec. 11D, which the appellant argued did not apply to them as a non-manufacturer. The Assistant Commissioner directed the appellant to pay Central Excise duty and imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q. The appellant's arguments were considered, but the findings of the authorities confirmed the duty payment and penalty imposition. The appellant's appeal lacked merit and was rejected. 3. The appellant's written submission argued that Rule 51A did not apply to clearance of goods and obtaining prior permission from the Commissioner for running a factory was impractical. The invoices issued by the appellant under Rule 57G/57T were deemed invalid for passing Modvat credit. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the duty payment and penalty imposition, finding no irregularity or illegality in the orders of the authorities below. The appellant's admission of clearing goods with duty paid invoices under Rule 57G/57T, despite not being a registered dealer, led to the rejection of the appeal. 4. The submissions made by the appellant and the findings of the original adjudicating authority were analyzed, with no new grounds raised in the appeal. The appellant's admission to clearing goods with unauthorized invoices and lack of registration as a dealer resulted in the rejection of the appeal. The orders of the authorities below were upheld, confirming the duty payment and penalty imposition. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
|