2016 (4) TMI 1188 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - capital goods - penalty u/r 15 of the CCR, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944 - Held that - the content of mala fides on the part of the appellant are missing. In that circumstances, the penalty on the appellant is not imposable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Act. The case involved the appellant taking Cenvat credit on capital goods and claiming depreciation during a specific financial period. Upon audit discovery, the appellant promptly reversed the Cenvat credit along with interest. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation for the reversal of wrongly taken Cenvat credit, interest appropriation, and penalty imposition. Both lower authorities upheld the penalty, leading to the appellant's appeal against it.

2. Despite the appellant's absence and lack of adjournment requests, the tribunal proceeded with the case due to multiple prior scheduling attempts. The appellant did not contest the duty liabilities and interest but challenged the penalty imposition under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Act. The appellate tribunal noted the absence of any mala fides on the appellant's part regarding the alleged wrongful Cenvat credit on capital goods, leading to the conclusion that penalty imposition was not justified.

3. The tribunal found that since the appellant was not disputing the duty liabilities and interest but only contesting the penalty, and in the absence of any evidence of mala fides, the penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Act was not sustainable. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order imposing the penalty, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

4. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, with the tribunal ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant by setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.