9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (11) TMI 782 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, entitlement to claim MODVAT/CENVAT Credit, imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI pertains to an appeal by the Revenue against the Appellate Commissioner's order regarding the classification of goods under Heading 96.09 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Tribunal noted that the classification dispute had been settled in favor of the Revenue, with the goods correctly classifiable under Heading 32.04 as per a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3724 of 1999. The Tribunal also considered the benefit of MODVAT/CENVAT Credit for the duty paid on inputs, citing previous orders where such benefit was granted to the assessee under similar circumstances. It was held that the assessee was entitled to claim MODVAT/CENVAT Credit, provided valid duty-paying documents were produced. Regarding the imposition of a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Tribunal found that the original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs on the assessee while confirming the demand of duty on the final product. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no specific ground raised in favor of imposing a penalty on the assessee, and the appellant had not made a case for such a penalty. Considering that the classification dispute had been contested up to the Supreme Court and the absence of intent to evade duty payment by the assessee, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty should be imposed on the respondent. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the assessee was required to pay duty on the goods as per the Supreme Court's decision on the classification issue but could avail MODVAT/CENVAT Credit for duty paid on inputs upon production of relevant duty-paying documents. The appeal was partly allowed, and no penalty was imposed on the respondent. The cross objections were also disposed of in the judgment.
|
