Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Powerica Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....not mentioned the respondent admits the technical lapses on their part.5,264 duplicate for transporter not mentioned it will be seen from the invoices that the same are marked as "transport copy" 1,619 20 63,212 on considering the same it is found that out of total credit of rs. 63,212.00, credit of only rs. 19,710/- at s. no. 1 & 2 of the chart extracted above could be ineligible. the penalty of rs. 50,000/-would, therefore, be not called for. c) no valid grounds have been taken by the commissioner to challenge the discretion of the penalty being not called for in the facts of this case. d) the appeal involves penalty of rs. 50,000/- only such appeals do not call even an admission.3. in view of the foldings this appeal is rejected.(pronounced in court)

Judgment:

S.S. Sekhon, Member (T) 1. The appellants had been imposed a penalty for availing certain credits under modvat. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of penalty. Revenue has been aggrieved and pled a in this appeal on the following grounds - "Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q on the ground that the assessee has reversed the credit before issue of SCN. This is not a sufficient ground for waiver of penalty especially as the assessee have apparently engaged wrongly availed credit for the year" 2. Heard both sides and considered the matter and it is found - a) Assessee had availed the credit of Rs. 67,6717- during January 1998 to November 1998 and on pointing out by Audit they reversed the same on 25.01.1999. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed.

b) The appellants have prepared a statement giving details of wrong availments, alleged, which is as follows - Sr. No. as per Ann. A Invoice No. & Date Reason for denial of credit Explanation Excess credit of Rs. 12,046/- Bonaftde error Credit taken twice Bonafide error Invoice not in the name of the assessee The invoice is in the nameof M/s. Powerica Ltd.. Only the shed No. B-8 is shown instead of B-6.

3,694 Credit taken on Xerox Copy "Duplicate Copy" of invoice was received later on and then got defaced from the Range Superintendent.

5,686 CSH not mentioned on Invoice The Respondent admits the technical lapses on theirpait 86 Not declared under Rule57G. 45 Declaration not filed under Rule 57G The inputs in question are electrical goods falling under Ch. 58 which are parts of DG sets and the Respondents have mentioned or declared the same "Parts/Accessories suitable for DG sets.

4,500 Duty amount and Entry No. not Mentioned The Respondent admits the technical lapses on their part.

5,264 Duplicate for transporter not Mentioned It will be seen from the invoices that the same are marked as "Transport Copy" 1,619 20 63,212 On considering the same it is found that out of total credit of Rs. 63,212.00, credit of only Rs. 19,710/- at S. No. 1 & 2 of the chart extracted above could be ineligible. The penalty of Rs. 50,000/-would, therefore, be not called for.

c) No valid grounds have been taken by the Commissioner to challenge the discretion of the penalty being not called for in the facts of this case.

d) The appeal involves penalty of Rs. 50,000/- only such appeals do not call even an admission.

3. In view of the foldings this appeal is rejected.

(Pronounced in Court)