2011 (8) TMI 895 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of penalty - Rules 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Tribunal has not committed any error in finding that no penalty could be imposed in the case, as there is conflicting opinion of the benches of the Tribunal, on account of which, it could not be said that Cenvat Credit in respect of input or capital goods was wrongly taken or in contravention of any of the provisions of the Rules - Appeal is dismised

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether penalty can be waived off under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when credit is taken and availed in contravention of Rule 11 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?

Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around the issue of imposing penalties under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for contravention of the rules. The appellant contested the penalty imposed by the Joint Commissioner (Adjudication) for the wrongful availing of Cenvat Credit/duty, amounting to Rs.6,97,510, along with additional Cenvat Credit/duty and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Allahabad, reduced the penalty based on a previous decision by the Allahabad High Court. The Tribunal considered conflicting decisions in different cases, leading to a referral to a Larger Bench for clarification, ultimately concluding that the penalty was not justified.

The judgment delves into the legal provisions governing penalties in such cases. Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act provides for penalties equal to the duty determined for specific violations. Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 outlines penalties for wrongful CENVAT credit utilization, with different sub-rules specifying penalties based on the nature of the contravention. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of a clear consensus among different benches, indicating that the penalty imposition lacked a solid legal basis due to conflicting opinions within the Tribunal.

Furthermore, the judgment emphasizes the limitations of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as subordinate legislation, stating that it cannot impose penalties beyond those stipulated under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. It clarifies that penalties are warranted only in cases involving fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention of provisions with the intent to evade duty payment. The ruling underscores that penalties should be commensurate with the duty determined under Section 11-A of the Act, following principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the judgment dismisses the Central Excise Appeal, highlighting the importance of adhering to legal provisions and ensuring penalties are imposed judiciously in line with the statutory framework to maintain fairness and justice in excise matters.