2009 (9) TMI 823 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order, Excess credit utilization by M/s. A.B.S. Steel (P) Ltd., Recovery of excess credit, Imposition of penalty, Interpretation of Central Excise law.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI was filed by the Department challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the recovery of excess credit utilized by M/s. A.B.S. Steel (P) Ltd. The case involved the purchase of inputs from SAIL, BSP, and subsequent sale to M/s. DM Engineering Ltd. The dispute arose from the utilization of Cenvat credit by M/s. A.B.S. Steel (P) Ltd. at a higher rate of duty, resulting in the original authority ordering recovery of the excess utilized credit and imposing penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the utilization of excess credit by M/s. A.B.S. Steel (P) Ltd. amounted to paying excess duty to the Government, thus rejecting the recovery demand.

In the absence of representation from the parties, the Tribunal considered the submissions of the Department's representative who reiterated the original authority's findings and relied on a precedent involving duty liability determination upon first removal of inputs from the manufacturer's factory. The Tribunal noted the contradiction in the Department's argument that while M/s. A.B.S. Steel (P) Ltd. indeed utilized excess credit, it effectively paid excess duty. Therefore, the Tribunal found the Department's claim for recovery of the excess credit utilized to be illogical and unsupported by law. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that M/s. A.B.S. Steel (P) Ltd. had already paid excess duty by utilizing the credit, making the demand for further duty unjustifiable.

The Tribunal's analysis focused on the legal aspect of the case, highlighting the absence of valid grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order. By reasoning that the utilization of excess credit equated to paying excess duty, the Tribunal deemed the recovery demand by the Department unreasonable and legally unsound. As a result, the Department's appeal was rejected, and the cross objection by M/s. A.B.S. Steel (P) Ltd. supporting the Commissioner (Appeals) order was also disposed of, concluding the matter before the Tribunal.