1998 (10) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat credit on machinery and accessories.
2. Imposition of duty on capital goods.
3. Confiscation of sugar manufactured and cleared.
4. Allegation of penalty.

Issue 1 - Disallowance of Modvat credit on machinery and accessories:
The case involved the appellants intending to manufacture sugar and purchasing machinery and accessories, claiming Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. A show cause notice was issued alleging misuse of materials, improper usage in capital goods, and failure to follow provisions of the law. The Assistant Commissioner denied several inputs, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed utilization of Modvat on some inputs while disallowing on others. The appellants argued that the denied items were essential component parts for sugar production, contesting the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Commissioner's order, remanding the case back to the Assistant Commissioner for a detailed review and finding on the admissibility of Modvat credit under the rules.

Issue 2 - Imposition of duty on capital goods:
The show cause notice proceeded to disallow Modvat credit, impose duty on capital goods not utilized as per rules, and confiscate sugar manufactured and cleared. The Assistant Commissioner's order denied several inputs, while the Commissioner (Appeals) permitted Modvat on some inputs but not on others. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner's order lacked clarity on the grounds for denial, focusing on the goods' classification as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The case was remanded for a detailed examination of the goods covered under each invoice to determine their admissibility under the cited rules.

Issue 3 - Confiscation of sugar manufactured and cleared:
The show cause notice alleged that goods cleared using Modvat credit were liable for confiscation. The appellants argued that as the machinery was not installed, no excisable goods were manufactured or cleared. The Assistant Commissioner's order upheld the charges without thorough discussion, while the Commissioner refrained from confiscation based on the duty payment source. The Tribunal noted the lack of detailed discussion in both orders and remanded the case for a comprehensive review of the goods and their admissibility under the rules.

Issue 4 - Allegation of penalty:
The show cause notice included an allegation of penalty. The Assistant Commissioner's order and the Commissioner's decision set aside the penalty due to the absence of mala fide intention. The Tribunal did not address the penalty issue specifically but remanded the case for a detailed examination of Modvat credit and duty imposition, indicating a comprehensive review of all aspects of the case.