2008 (8) TMI 734 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Duty demand under Section 11AB, interpretation of terms 'input' and 'capital goods', imposition of penalty.

Duty Demand under Section 11AB:
The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the duty demand of Rs. 19,350/-, including education cess, imposed on the respondent by the Deputy Commissioner. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing writing and printing paper, had taken Cenvat credit on M.S. Angles and M.S. Channels, which was found impermissible during a visit by the Central Excise Division. The respondent initially admitted the mistake and voluntarily debited the amount. However, in the subsequent proceedings, they claimed that the goods were used in the manufacture of parts and accessories of capital goods. The Commissioner noted the conflicting claims but ultimately set aside the original duty demand order.

Interpretation of 'Input' and 'Capital Goods:
The appeal centered on the definitions of 'input' and 'capital goods' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent argued that the M.S. Angles and M.S. Channels qualified as inputs under Explanation 2, as they were used in making components, spares, or accessories of capital goods within the factory. However, it was highlighted that for goods to be considered capital goods under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii), they must pertain to specific chapters of the Tariff. As the respondent failed to specify the capital goods in which the disputed items were used, the duty demand was challenged. The Commissioner's decision to set aside the penalty and duty demand was partially upheld, emphasizing the necessity of specifying the relevant capital goods.

Imposition of Penalty:
Regarding the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, it was observed that the non-payment of duty may have been due to a genuine misunderstanding of the rules by the respondent. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's decision to set aside the penalty. Consequently, the respondent was held liable for duty of Rs. 19,350/-, and the appeal was partially allowed, overturning the Commissioner's order on duty demand but upholding the decision on penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's ruling on the duty demand, interpretation of 'input' and 'capital goods', and imposition of penalty highlighted the importance of adhering to the specific definitions and requirements outlined in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The judgment provided clarity on the conditions under which goods qualify for Cenvat credit and underscored the significance of accurate classification and documentation in availing such benefits.