LAWS(CE)-2003-9-341

TIMEX WATCHES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

Decided On September 26, 2003
Timex Watches Ltd. Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a manufacturer of several varieties of wrist watches. A duty demand of over Rs. 1.7 crore and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been confirmed under the order impugned. The duty demand has resulted from denial of Modvat credit on the inputs used by the appellants in the manufacture of wrist watches.

(2.) THE reason for the denial of Modvat credit is that the appellant took Modvat credit in respect of inputs received by them but did not maintain "an account in form of RG -23A Part I and II and submit within five days after the close of each month to the Superintendent, Central Excise along with monthly return in form RT -12". The order notes that, instead "They simply maintained computerised material receipt report showing gate entry No., challan No., invoice No. and consigner's name".

(3.) THE appellant's position all through was that they were maintaining all relevant accounts in computer and such electronic data storage was necessary since the production of large varieties of watches involved dealing with thousands of parts and such voluminous data is efficiently handled only by computer. They also point out that that they sought permission from the Central Excise authorities for the keeping of accounts on computer and their request had been recommended by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut. Specific reference in this connection was made to the letter dated 28 -3 -1995 of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to the Commissioner. It is the submission of the appellant that duty demand and penalty are not justified at all since Revenue has no case that appellant was not eligible for the credit or that credit taken was in excess of the duty paid on the inputs. They have relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Espirit Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai II - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1145; C.C.E., Meerut v. Subros Ltd. - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 546 and Demosha Chemical Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1999 (107) E.L.T, 443 in support.