2014 (3) TMI 988 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Intention to evade duty - Held that - AO has recorded a finding that the Assessee had not received the Concast Slab and yet it claimed Modvat/Cenvat credit on the same. It is on this basis, the AO has held that the requirement of the ingredient with intent to evade duty was satisfied. This finding was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the order of the AO has been upheld by the Tribunal. - Tribunal has recorded a finding that the impugned goods were not transported by the Assessee through the vehicles claimed by him. There is no illegality in the finding. - it cannot be said that the requirement of the ingredient with intent to evade duty was not satisfied. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Tax case against the order of the Tribunal dated 7-5-2010 regarding Modvat/Cenvat credit reversal, penalty imposition, and appeal outcomes.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Consideration of limitation under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The appeal questioned whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order of 31-10-2006 without considering the finding on the issue of limitation. The AO found that the Assessee claimed Modvat/Cenvat credit without receiving the Concast Slab, satisfying the ingredient 'with intent to evade duty.' The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this finding, but the Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, stating the goods were not transported as claimed by the Assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was deemed legal, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issue 2: Compliance with Central Excise Act and Rules for penalty imposition.
The second question raised the sustainability of the impugned order concerning the non-consideration of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with relevant Rules. The Tribunal's finding that the Assessee did not transport the goods as claimed supported the requirement of 'with intent to evade duty.' This led to the dismissal of the Assessee's appeal, as the Tribunal's decision was seen as legally sound and in line with the Act and Rules.

Issue 3: Scope of penalty and interest imposition under Central Excise Rules.
The final question addressed whether the penalty under Rule 173-Q and interest payment under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 exceeded the scope of Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal's decision, based on the Assessee's failure to transport the goods as claimed, upheld the imposition of penalties and interest, thus falling within the ambit of the Rules. Consequently, all questions were answered against the Assessee, favoring the Department, and the tax case was dismissed for lacking merit.