2012 (3) TMI 38 - AT - Central Excise

Jurisdiction defect penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for alleged wrong availment of credit on capital goods Revenue s case is that there were no goods cleared at all from supplier of capital goods located at Indore appellant factory situated at Nasik - Held that - The order is not specific as to how there is jurisdiction vested with CCE, Indore for imposing penalty for taking wrong Cenvat credit in Nasik or how the provisions of Rule 209A or Rule 26 is applicable to the situation. Thus no merit is found in the argument for imposing penalty under aforesaid Rules and vesting of jurisdiction with CCE, Indore for credit taken in Nasik factory penalty order set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Appellants for availing inadmissible credit.
2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore to impose penalty on the Appellants for taking wrong Cenvat credit in Nasik.
3. Applicability of Rule 209A and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the situation.

Analysis:
1. The Appellants, manufacturers of excisable goods, had taken Cenvat credit based on invoices issued by M/s MGM Tools Pvt. Ltd. for the supply of capital goods. However, an investigation revealed that no such capital goods were supplied by M/s MGM Tools, leading to a demand for recovery of the credit and imposition of penalties on both parties. The Appellants contested the penalties imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, arguing that the offense of issuing the invoices was committed by M/s MGM Tools and not by them. They further highlighted that during the period in question, Rule 26 was not in force, and the corresponding rule did not provide for penalties for merely issuing invoices.

2. The Appellants raised a jurisdictional issue, contending that the Central Excise authorities in Nasik, where their factory was located, had proceeded against them for demanding the credit and imposing penalties, while the authorities in Indore had no separate case for imposing penalties under Rule 26. The Appellants argued that the penalties imposed were not maintainable as the rules dealing with penalties on persons handling goods did not apply in a situation where no goods were cleared at all. The Appellants questioned the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, to impose penalties for credit taken in their Nasik factory.

3. The Appellants challenged the applicability of Rule 209A and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in their case. The Appellants emphasized that the impugned order lacked clarity on how the penalties were justified under these rules and how the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore had jurisdiction to impose penalties for incorrect Cenvat credit taken in Nasik. The Appellants argued that the findings in the impugned order did not establish the legal basis for imposing penalties under the specified rules. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, concluded that there was no merit in imposing penalties under Rule 209A or Rule 26 on the Appellants and that the impugned order was not maintainable concerning the penalties imposed. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Appellants, providing them with consequential relief.