2010 (10) TMI 458 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Penalty - the demand is made on the ground that the goods sent to job worker was received short and in respect of the same challans in the annexure-II the demand is made on the ground that entire quantity of goods received from the job worker within 180 days - in the present case when full quantity of goods received from job worker, the appellants are eligible to take credit in respect of the duties paid on the inputs - nominal amount of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- is imposed and appellants are not challenging the major amount of credit denied - The appeals are disposed off

Summary

Issues involved:
- Denial of credit of specific amounts in appeals
- Verification of duplication of demand
- Dispute regarding duty payment on inputs
- Denial of credit based on missing duty payment particulars in invoices
- Denial of credit for items used in furnace
- Denial of credit for assembly canvas
- Denial of credit based on availing on the strength of a letter
- Denial of credit for items used in furnace
- Imposition of penalties

Analysis:

1. Denial of Credit in Appeals:
The appellants challenged the denial of credit for various amounts in appeals, citing specific grounds for each. The Tribunal reviewed each denial individually, considering arguments from both sides. In some cases, the denial was set aside due to lack of sustainable evidence, while in others, the denial was upheld based on valid reasoning.

2. Verification of Duplication of Demand:
The issue of duplication of demand was raised by the appellants, pointing out discrepancies in the grounds for denial of credit. The Tribunal noted the need for verification in such cases and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for the appellants to present their case.

3. Dispute Regarding Duty Payment on Inputs:
A dispute arose regarding duty payment on inputs received from various buyers, with the appellants claiming credit based on consolidated entries. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence of duty payment, ultimately setting aside the denial of credit for further verification and evidence submission.

4. Denial of Credit Based on Missing Duty Payment Particulars:
The denial of credit based on missing duty payment particulars in invoices was contested by the appellants, who argued that the necessary details were indeed present in the dealer's invoices. The Tribunal upheld the credit in such cases where duty payment particulars were clearly mentioned, citing precedents and established rules.

5. Denial of Credit for Items Used in Furnace:
Specific items used in the furnace were subject to credit denial, with the appellants failing to provide technical evidence supporting their claim that these items qualified as inputs. As a result, the denial of credit for certain items used in the furnace was upheld by the Tribunal.

6. Denial of Credit for Assembly Canvas:
The denial of credit for assembly canvas cleared along with a vehicle was previously settled in favor of the appellants in a similar case. The Tribunal, referring to the earlier order, set aside the denial of credit for assembly canvas, highlighting the importance of consistency in decisions.

7. Denial of Credit Based on Availing on the Strength of a Letter:
Credit denial based on availing on the strength of a letter addressed to the Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Tribunal, considering the transfer of the business unit and the lack of entitlement for the appellants to claim such credit.

8. Imposition of Penalties:
Nominal penalties were imposed, and since the appellants did not challenge the major credit denials, the penalties were upheld by the Tribunal, concluding the disposal of the appeals without interference in the penalty quantum.