2011 (2) TMI 806 - AT - Central Excise

Stay application - Waiver of pre-deposit - Disallowing the credit taken on trolleys - Assessee submits that they have presumed that penalty of Rs. 3,43,563/- under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act stands by the Commissioner (A) - He submits that they also contested the demand on time bar issue as they specifically replied stating that there was no suppression involved - . Ld. Advocate fairly submits that they have not made specific submissions before the Commissioner (A) on time bar as they were confident on the merits of the case. However, he contests the demand before the Tribunal not only on merits but also on time bar - find that the Commissioner (A) has not dealt with the issues relating to the applicability of extended period and no orders passed on penalty - The order of the Commissioner (A) in so far as the same related to denial of credit on trolleys is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration of admissibility of credit on trolleys, demand invoking extended period and other connected issues like imposition of penalties

Summary

Issues: Stay application for waiver of predeposit of demand, disallowance of credit on trolleys, imposition of penalty, applicability of extended period of limitation.

In this case, the appellants, manufacturers of Dump Trucks, sought waiver of predeposit of demand amounting to Rs. 3,43,563/- related to the disallowance of credit taken on trolleys treated as inputs, along with interest and penalty. The dispute arose from a show cause notice issued for the period October 2006 to April 2008, challenging the credit on trolleys and plastic crates. The original authority disallowed credit on both items, while the Commissioner (A) allowed credit on plastic crates but upheld the demand on trolleys without addressing the penalty issue. The appellants contested the penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, asserting no suppression. The Commissioner (A) did not address the time bar issue or penalty imposition. The Tribunal noted the absence of specific submissions on time bar before the Commissioner (A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to address the applicability of the extended period, admissibility of credit on trolleys, and imposition of penalties. The appeal was allowed by remand, with the stay petition being disposed of.

This judgment highlights the importance of addressing all issues comprehensively, including the applicability of the extended period of limitation, admissibility of credit, and imposition of penalties. It underscores the need for parties to present arguments on all relevant aspects before the authorities to ensure a fair and thorough consideration of the case. The decision emphasizes the principle of providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and ensuring that all connected issues are adequately addressed in the adjudication process to uphold the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.