2008 (1) TMI 771 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat credit - Documents for availing credit - Quantum of Penalty - Held that - if there is no dispute regarding the duty paid nature of the inputs and the inputs have undisputedly been received in the factory and the assessee has taken credit that is sufficient for the purpose of availment of credit and the deficiency in the duty paying document is not to be held against the assessee for the purpose of denying the substantive benefit of Modvat credit - denial of credit set aside. The penalty is not required to be set aside in toto for the reason that the other contraventions of law viz. availment of credit twice on the same goods and no discharge of duty liability on certain finished goods have already been upheld and accepted by the appellants - penalty reduced to 45, 816/-.

Summary

Issues: Cenvat credit availed twice on the same goods, failure to discharge duty on certain finished goods, availing Cenvat credit on the basis of inadmissible documents, denial of credit based on endorsed invoices, imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
1. Cenvat Credit Issues:
The appellants were engaged in manufacturing grey woven fabrics and had availed Cenvat credit on inputs. The central excise officers found discrepancies where the appellants availed Cenvat credit twice on the same goods, failed to pay duty on specific finished goods, and utilized credit based on questionable documents. The amounts involved were Rs. 27,634/- for double availing, Rs. 18,182/- for unpaid duty on finished goods, and Rs. 76,913/- for credit based on endorsed invoices. The show cause notice demanded recovery of these amounts, interest, and penalty. The appellants contested the denial of credit and the penalty. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demands and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,22,720/-, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Judgment on Denial of Credit:
In the appeal, the appellants argued that the credit based on endorsed invoices should be allowed, citing judgments from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Tribunal agreed, referring to the High Court's stance that if duty-paid inputs were received and credit was taken, the deficiency in the duty paying document should not deny the credit. Therefore, the denial of credit amounting to Rs. 76,913/- was set aside. However, the penalty was not entirely revoked due to the upheld contraventions of availing credit twice on the same goods and not discharging duty on specific finished goods. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 45,816/- considering these violations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the credit based on endorsed invoices but upheld penalties for other contraventions, reducing the total penalty imposed. The judgment provided clarity on the admissibility of credit under specific circumstances and highlighted the importance of compliance with excise regulations to avoid penalties.