2008 (4) TMI 610 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit due to failure to file necessary declaration for impugned goods, imposition of penalty, remand of the matter to the original Authority.

1. Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The Appellants were denied Cenvat credit on the impugned goods as they had not filed the necessary declaration before receiving the goods in their factory. The Appellants argued that although they did not declare the exact description of the goods, their submitted declarations for various items covered the impugned goods as well. However, the Authorities found that the declarations did not include the impugned goods. The Appellants' excuse of dealing with numerous items was deemed insufficient for not declaring the goods as required by the Rules. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that filing a declaration is necessary, but the prescribed limitation is not mandatory. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the Appellants another chance to file a proper declaration with the original authority for examination regarding the impugned goods, provided the conditions of receipt of goods and duty payment are met.

2. Imposition of Penalty:
A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellants for not filing relevant declarations as per legal provisions, despite taking credit of Rs. 44,81,692.83. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the case and upheld the penalty, stating that it was fully justified. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed by the Authorities, given the Appellants' failure to comply with declaration requirements.

3. Remand of the Matter:
While upholding the penalty, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand and remanded the matter to the original Authority. The Appellants were directed to file the necessary declarations within a month of receiving the order. The original Authority was instructed to review the declarations, provide a hearing opportunity to the Appellants, and issue a fresh order based on the declarations submitted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by remanding the matter for further review and compliance with declaration requirements, upholding the penalty imposed on the Appellants.