2000 (8) TMI 510 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Wrong availment of Modvat credit based on documents not issued in the appellant's name.
2. Non-compliance with Rule 57G(2) regarding invoices marked as "Duplicate for Transporter."
3. Excess credit taken on inputs not accounted for in RG-23A Part-I.
4. Missing particulars regarding debit of Central Excise duty in PLA/RG 23A Part II.
5. Inadmissibility of credit on capital goods not covered under Rule 57Q.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Wrong Availment of Modvat Credit
The show cause notices alleged that the appellants took Modvat credit based on documents issued in the name of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) care of the appellants, which is not permissible under the Modvat scheme. The Commissioner dropped this charge after considering the appellants' replies and hearing them.

Issue No. 2: Non-compliance with Rule 57G(2)
The Commissioner found that the appellants availed Modvat credit using documents not marked as "Duplicate for Transporter," which is mandatory under Rule 57G(2) and Rule 52A. The appellants contended that the documents were transporter's copies sent back to IOC, supported by an affidavit from IOC explaining their internal procedures. The Tribunal remanded this issue for fresh decision by the Commissioner, considering the Larger Bench decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Ltd., which mandates that credit must be based on the duplicate copy of the invoice.

Issue No. 3: Excess Credit on Inputs
The appellants admitted to taking excess credit and deposited Rs. 51,900.75 out of the excess credit of Rs. 54,400.84. The Commissioner confirmed this charge, and the Tribunal upheld the liability to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,500.09.

Issue No. 4: Missing Particulars in Duty Documents
The Commissioner denied Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,38,11,670.80 and Rs. 50,39,583.15 due to missing particulars regarding the debit of Central Excise duty in PLA/RG 23A Part II. The appellants prepared a reconciliation chart containing all particulars and requested remand for verification. The Tribunal remanded this issue for verification by the Commissioner.

Issue No. 5: Inadmissibility of Credit on Capital Goods
The Commissioner found that M.S. plates were not covered under the definition of capital goods in Rule 57Q at the relevant time and denied credit of Rs. 39,163/-. However, the Tribunal held that lab instruments used for testing and ensuring quality control parameters laid down by IOC are capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q, allowing credit of Rs. 30,491/-.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the cases for fresh decisions by the Commissioner on specific issues, including the verification of documents and reconciliation charts. The penalties imposed were set aside, leaving the question of appropriate penalties to be decided by the Commissioner after re-quantifying the duty demands. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.