ORDER
V.K. Agarwal, Member (T)
1. The Revenue has filled the present appeal against setting aside the penalty imposed on M/s. Gauri Synthetics.
2. Shri R. Chandan, learned D.R., submitted that the Respondents had availed Modvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the dealers which were not registered with the central Excise Department; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original dated 07.10.1996 disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that the registration certificate and relevant dealers invoices were not produced for necessary verification; that the Additional Commissioner had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the respondents; that however, Commissioner (Appeals), on the appeal filed by the Respondents, observed that the Adjudicating authority has not considered the Board’s Circular No. 76/76/94-CX dated 06.11.94 and Notification No. 64/94-C.E.(N.T.) dated 07.11.1994, and he remanded the matter to the Additional Commissioner after setting aside the penalty.
3. The learned D.R. contended that the invoices were not produced even before the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such it was not possible to verify as to whether the invoices contended all the details as required by Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), that accordingly the penalty should not have been waived by the Commissioner (Appeals); that when the mater has been remanded for denovo decision, there is no justification for waiving the penalty.
4. Countering the arguments, Shri K.R. Desai, learned Consultant, submitted that they had submitted the zerox copy of Registration Certificate of the dealers and invoices under their letter dated 15.03.96, much before the passing of the Order-in-Original; that these were not considered by the Adjudicating Authority; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter only to verify whether the relevant invoices contained all the details as required under Notification No. 15/94-CE (N.T.). The learned consultant showed some relevant invoices and contended that these contain all details as required under the Notification. He also pointed out that though the matter was remanded in November, 1997, so far the same has not been decided by the Adjudicating Authority. He finally submitted that the period involved is August 1994 when there was lot of confusion about the availability of Modvat credit due to various changes, and as the input had been received and used in or in relation to manufacture of final goods, no penalty is imposable on them.
5. I have considered the submissions of both sides. In view of the facts of dealers who had supplied the input had been registered and the matter had been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals), to verify the invoices, I find considerable force in the submission of the respondents that no penalty is imposable on them, I also observe that it is not the case of the Revenue that the inputs were not received and utilized in the manufacture of the final products. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has waived the penalty. The appeal filed by the Revenue is thus rejected.
(Pronounced in Court)