2014 (4) TMI 1193 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty on Director - CENVAT/MODVAT credit - duty paying invoices - respondent was never a party in litigation - Held that - in the earlier round of litigation the Revenue preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. In that appeal Shri Udaykumar Vinzanekar was not made as one of the party as a respondent and the departments appeal was allowed by way of remand vide Order dated 31.12.2004. In the remand order, there was no direction by this Tribunal for consideration of penalty on the Director. In these circumstances, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty imposed on the Director - the Revenue has not made Shri Udaykumar Vinzanekar, Director of M/s Windals Auto P. Ltd. as respondent and no relief has been sought by the Revenue against M/s Windals Auto P. Ltd. - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed by the appellant regarding CENVAT Credit availed without receiving goods.
2. Appeal filed by the Revenue against non-imposition of penalty on the Director.

Analysis:
1. The first appeal (E/2294/06) was filed by the appellant concerning the denial of CENVAT Credit by the Revenue. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the appellant's factory regarding the statutory records for Modvat credit. The appellant was found to have taken credit without actually receiving the goods, leading to the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The matter was previously remanded for verification of facts. The appellant's failure to disclose the actual description of the goods to the department resulted in the denial of CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal, after perusing the records, concluded that the appeal had no merits and dismissed it.

2. The second appeal was filed by the Revenue against the non-imposition of a penalty on the Director of the company. In a previous appeal, the Director was not made a party, and the appeal was remanded without any specific direction regarding the penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty on the Director, leading the Revenue to appeal again. However, in the current appeal, the Director was not made a respondent, and no relief was sought against the company. The Tribunal noted that without impleading the Director as a respondent, the Revenue was not entitled to seek any relief against him. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of CENVAT Credit in the first appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the non-imposition of a penalty on the Director due to procedural shortcomings in impleading the Director as a respondent.