1998 (12) TMI 245 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on M/s. Modern Steel and Wire Products for alleged contravention of provisions to Rule 57G read with Rule 57GG.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty: The appeal stemmed from an Order-in-Original imposing a penalty on M/s. Modern Steel and Wire Products for alleged violations under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant, a registered dealer dealing with PCSR wires, was accused of issuing invoices not consigned to their registered premises, engaging in transit-in-sale without goods reaching the registered premises, and failing to include required particulars in invoices between specific dates. The penalty was imposed based on these alleged violations.

2. Appellant's Defense: The appellant contended that they received goods from a supplier in Bombay under purchase invoices, where the supplier mistakenly listed the manufacturer's address instead of the dealer's address in invoices from September to December 1994. The appellant maintained that all other records accurately reflected transactions, with no misuse of modvat credit. They argued that the penalty was unwarranted as the mistake was the supplier's, not theirs.

3. Contentions and Findings: The appellant argued that the penalty was incorrectly imposed on the dealer, as the manufacturer should not be penalized for the dealer's actions. The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the order, including the address mentioned and the lack of specific findings regarding the allegations in the show cause notice. The appellant also challenged the issuance of a corrigendum changing the address in the order, claiming it was beyond the authority's power.

4. Judgment and Remand: After considering the submissions, the judge found that the impugned order lacked a thorough examination of the appellant's defense and records. Consequently, the judge set aside the order and remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh consideration. The appellant was directed to present all records and arguments, and the authority was tasked with re-evaluating the issue and issuing a new order in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key legal issues, arguments presented by the parties, findings, and the ultimate decision of setting aside the original order for a re-examination of the case.