2001 (8) TMI 853 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Dispensing with the precondition of deposit of duty amount and penalty
- Non-filing of D-3 intimation in prescribed format under Rule 173H
- Non-receipt of duplicate copy of the invoice for returned goods
- Barred by limitation due to delayed show cause notice

Dispensing with the precondition of deposit of duty amount and penalty:
The appellant sought dispensation from depositing duty and penalty. The duty was confirmed, and penalty imposed due to non-filing of a proper D-3 intimation under Rule 173H. The appellant argued that the filing of D-3 was not a condition during the relevant period and that mere non-filing should not deny the benefit under the rule, especially when the goods were verified by excise authorities and records were maintained. The appellant also contended that the absence of the duplicate invoice copy should not affect their claim as it was not required for Modvat credit and did not impact the receipt of returned goods.

Non-filing of D-3 intimation in prescribed format under Rule 173H:
The main ground for rejecting the benefit under Rule 173H was the appellant's failure to file a proper D-3 intimation. The appellant argued that the requirement for filing the D-3 format was introduced later and that the simple intimation provided was sufficient as the goods were verified by excise authorities. The appellant maintained that the absence of the duplicate invoice copy should not affect their claim under the rule, especially since the buyers did not claim any duty credit based on it.

Non-receipt of duplicate copy of the invoice for returned goods:
Another issue raised was the non-receipt of the duplicate invoice copy for the returned goods. The appellant explained that the original and duplicate copies were sent back by the buyers, but the duplicate was lost in transit. The appellant clarified that the duplicate copy was not essential for the current transaction and that the absence should not impact their entitlement under Rule 173H, as the duty-paid items were received, and buyers did not claim any credit based on the duplicate copy.

Barred by limitation due to delayed show cause notice:
The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the goods were returned in 1995, and complete information was provided to the revenue at that time. However, the show cause notice was issued in 1998, invoking a longer limitation period. The appellant contended that the circumstances for extending the limitation period were not present, as all relevant information was already with the revenue. Therefore, the appellant claimed that the demand was barred by limitation.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal ruled that the technical objections raised by the revenue should not hinder the appellant from claiming the benefit under Rule 173H. The Tribunal noted that the goods were received back, verified by excise officers, and reprocessed without duty payment. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was granted to the appellant. The Tribunal did not express any views on the limitation issue as the appeal was allowed on its merits.