2007 (4) TMI 64 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Revenue contended that assessee had made misdeclaration about the good and accordingly disallow the credit and demand were made alongwith interest and penalty - Held that revenue contention was correct and credit was not allowed

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of Cenvat credit, duty demand on Polyester Blended Yarn, penalty modification

Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit: The case involved the disallowance of Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on "usable man-made fibre generated waste processed for spinning" against consignments of "P.C. Waste" received at the factory. The original authority disallowed the credit as the goods were not received at the Registered Office or in the original packing at the factory. The appellate authority upheld this decision, emphasizing the discrepancy in descriptions and lack of evidence from the appellant to substantiate their claim. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities, noting that the products were different and the appellant failed to provide sufficient proof to support their claim. The appeal was dismissed based on these grounds.

2. Duty Demand on Polyester Blended Yarn: The duty demand of Rs. 1,23,709/- was imposed on the appellant for clearances of yarn made using the disallowed Cenvat credit. The original authority found that the duty had been paid utilizing the said credit and imposed a penalty accordingly. The appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to the Tribunal's affirmation of the duty demand. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of accurate documentation and the failure of the appellant to demonstrate the consistency in the goods received at different locations. Consequently, the duty demand was deemed valid and formed a basis for the dismissal of the appeal.

3. Penalty Modification: The penalty initially imposed at Rs. 1,48,599/- was reduced to Rs. 40,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant sought further reduction in the penalty, which was the subject of discussion during the proceedings. The Tribunal considered the penalty modification but ultimately upheld the decision of the lower authorities. The Tribunal found the equal amount of penalty to be harsh and reduced it to Rs. 40,000/-. The appellant did not raise any new grounds during the appeal, and the Tribunal's decision was based on the facts and evidence presented during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the lack of substantial evidence from the appellant to support their claims regarding the Cenvat credit, duty demand, and penalty modification. The decision was based on the discrepancy in descriptions of goods received and the failure of the appellant to provide convincing documentation or records to substantiate their position. The Tribunal's ruling aligned with previous judgments involving the same appellant, reinforcing the dismissal of the appeal in this case.