COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MAHINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these matters, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal only on the ground that credit was available to the respondents (herein) and, therefore, there could be no suppression of duty. The view of the Tribunal is sought to be supported by a Judgement of this Court in the case of AMCO Batteries Ltd. V/s. CCE the relevant paragraph of which reads as follows :

(2.) We find that in many cases, including this case, it is urged that the above quoted observations lay down the principle that whenever benefit of MODVAT Scheme is available then, irrespective of any other fact, there can be no suppression. The above-highlighted observations do support such an interpretation.

(3.) We, however, find that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Judgement the Court had concluded that there was no sale in that case. The Court had concluded that the entire movement of scrap had been recorded in the regular books of accounts and proper documentation was maintained. It appears to us that the observations made in paragraph 10 set out hereinabove that the appellants were entitled to get benefit of MODVAT Scheme and that, therefore, there was no justifiable reason to suppress the fact is based on facts i.e. there was no material on record to infer or establish that excise duty had not been levied or paid by reason of any fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or in contravention of any of the provisions of any rules. However, it is regularly urged that this authority lays down that, irrespective of facts, if a party is entitled to get benefit of MODVAT Scheme, then there can be no suppression and the above-highlighted observations are capable of such interpretation.