2007 (3) TMI 105 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Appellant contended that there is not contest for demand of duty liability was wholly ill founded for the reason of levy of interest and penalty have emanated from duty demand - Held appellant contention was correct and allowed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order confirming penalty and interest but denying Cenvat credit relief.

Analysis:
The appellants appealed against an order confirming penalty and interest but denying Cenvat credit relief. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the appellants did not contest the demand of duty but only contested the interest and penalty imposed. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order, stating that the goods received by the appellants were from a trader who had suppressed facts regarding evading credit, leading to the imposition of penalty. However, the appellants argued that they contested both the duty demand and the penalty and interest. They pointed out that the levy of penalty and interest stemmed from the duty demand and that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) made an erroneous observation. The appellants cited Circular No. 218/52/96-CX and a Tribunal's order to support their claim that they should not be denied Cenvat credit relief. They presented an invoice showing duty paid goods purchased from the trader and endorsed in their favor. The appellants emphasized that denying them Cenvat credit relief would be unjust and unequal treatment under the law.

The ld. DR contended that since the appellant did not contest the matter of Cenvat Credit relief and the penalty was confirmed due to suppression of facts, the first appellate order was justified. However, upon hearing both sides and examining the evidence, the Tribunal found that the endorsed invoice issued by the trader should entitle the appellants to Cenvat credit relief. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting relief based on the facts and circumstances of each case to ensure justice, uniformity, and consistency. The Tribunal concluded that denying Cenvat credit and imposing penalty and interest deprived the appellants of due process of justice. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders of the authorities below to serve the ends of justice. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 2-3-2007.