Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
M/S Calcutta Fabricating Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce, Calcutta-Ii on 30 July, 2001
ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. The Authorities below have denied the credit of Rs.30,253.85(rupees thirty thousand two hundred fifty three and eighty five) and has imposed personal penalty of Rs.2,500/-(rupees two thousand and five hundred) on the appellant on the ground that the invoices on which credit was taken by the appellant had been issued by the dealers who did not get themselves read. up to 31.12.94. Another portion of the modvat credit has been denied on the ground that the same has been taken on the basis of endorsed gate passes, which were issued prior to 1.4.94 and endorsed after the said date, but the credit was availed after 30.6.94, thus contravening the conditions of the Notfn. No.16/94.
2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, ld.consultant and Shri Chaturvedi, ld.SDR I find that the issue as regards availability of credit on the basis of the invoices issued by non-regd. dealers is settled against the appellants by the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. -2000(116)ELT 364(LB). As such the credit in respect of such invoices had been rightly rejected by the Authorities.
3. As regards the second issue, admittedly the credit has been taken after 30.6.1994 on the basis of the endorsed gate passes. Notfn. No.16/94-CE(NT) does not allow taking of credit on the basis of endorsed gate passes after 30.6.94. Accordingly I hold that the denial of credit on this ground is also justified.
4. Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, ld.consultant has drawn my attention to an amount of Rs.460.80 availed by them in respect of their inputs `double pil of (sic)', which has been denied on the ground that whereas the inputs were received on 26.8.94, the modvat declaration was filed on 9.9.94. Shri Chattopadhyay submits that the Asstt.Commissioner should have condoned the delay of about 13 days in filing the declaration, when there was no dispute about the receipt of the inputs. I agree with the above submission of the ld.consultant and after condoning the delay in filing the declaration alow the modvat credit of Rs.460.80.
5. Shri Chattopadhyay also submits that out of the total demand of duty confirmed by the authorities, they have already deposited small amounts confirmed on various grounds. As such he submits that the said deposits so made by them should be taken into the said deposit factors and the final credit to be reversed by them would be arrived at Accordingly.
6. As regards the personal penalty of Rs.2,500/-(rupees two thousand and five hundred) imposed upon the appellant, I find that the issues at the relevant time were not clear from doubt and the law has been set at rest only by the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal. There is no mala fide on the part of the appellant. Accordingly the penalty amount of Rs.2,500/-(rupees two thousand and five hundred) is set aside. Appeal is thus disposed of in above terms.
Dictated in the court.