2004 (11) TMI 488 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:

1. Challenge of imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000 in the present Appeal.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a challenge to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The appellant, represented by Shri Sanjay Grover, Advocate, did not contest the denial of Modvat credit but specifically challenged the penalty. It was argued that prior to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., there were conflicting views on the availability of Modvat credit for inputs used in mines. Reference was made to the decision in Mangalam Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, where the Tribunal disallowed the credit but set aside the penalty citing an issue of interpretation of rules. On the other hand, Shri S. Bhatnagar, JDR for the respondent, supported the findings of the impugned order.

The presiding judge, Shri V.K. Agrawal, considered the arguments presented by both sides. It was acknowledged that there were differing opinions on allowing Modvat credit for duty paid on inputs used in mines before the Supreme Court's clarification in the J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. case. The judge noted that even in the Mangalam Cement case, where the credit was disallowed, the penalty was set aside due to the issue being one of rule interpretation. Based on these considerations, the judge concluded that the penalty was not warranted. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi resolved the issue regarding the imposition of a penalty in the appeal, taking into account the conflicting views on Modvat credit for inputs used in mines and the subsequent clarification provided by the Supreme Court. The decision highlighted the importance of legal interpretation in such matters and emphasized the need for consistency in applying penalties based on the nature of the issues involved.