ASCO (INDIA) LTD Vs. CEGAT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference case petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the Tribunal to draw up a statement of facts and refer the question of law as to "whether apparent shortage of the inputs would amount to contravention of Rule 57F and whether duty can be demanded under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules?"

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in manufacture and supply of solenoid valves falling under the Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Officer of the Excise Department conducted a verification of records and found that the petitioner has not reversed the credit availed on the inputs which were declared to be shortages and which were written off in their books for the years 1994-95 to 1998-99 and the value of which was Rs. 13,36,134.33. According to the Department, if there is any shortfall, the petitioner ought to have intimated to the Department which has not been done and the availed credit should have been reversed which the petitioner failed to do. The petitioner provisionally debited an amount of Rs. 1.50 lakhs on 22-5-1999 towards the short fall of Modvat inputs and undertaken to pay the balance, if any. The petitioner declared the inputs as shortage and written off in the balance sheet. So, that shows that the goods are not available and it has not been used for in or in relation to manufacture of any excisable goods. Rule 57-I provides for recovery of credit wrongly availed or utilised in irregular manner. Hence, in respect of the goods, which are found shortage and written off in the books of account on which credit has been taken, is sought to be reversed and in default of the same, penal consequences are taken against the petitioner. In the above said factual circumstances of the case, we do not find any question of law so as to direct the Tribunal to draw a statement of facts and refer the question to the High Court for resolution. The contention that the authorities have taken a different view in subsequent years in respect of the shortage of goods cannot by itself be a reason to formulate a question of law.

(3.) For the above reasons, the R.C.P. is dismissed.