2013 (11) TMI 1103 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of Cenvat Credit - Angles, channels, beams, joists etc. used in the manufacture of capital goods in the factory - Extended period of limitation - Waiver of pre-deposit of Cenvat Credit - Penalty under Rule 15 Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Personal penalty on Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 Held that - Following Vandana Global Ltd. Versus CCE 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - The applicant directed to deposit 25% as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of Cenvat Credit, penalty under Rule 15 Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.10.99 Crores and an equal penalty imposed under Rule 15 Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, along with a personal penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on the Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicant availed Cenvat Credit on specific items used in the manufacture of capital goods during the period of 2004-09. The Ld. Consultant for the applicant offered to deposit 25% of the total demand, which included an amount of Rs.2.44 Crores related to the demand for the normal period.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and noted that the amount involved for the normal period was approximately 2.44 Crores. It was observed that the Tribunal had a consistent view of allowing stay applications where the issue pertained to the availment of Cenvat Credit on certain items used in the manufacture of capital goods, even when the demand was raised invoking an extended period of limitation. However, the Tribunal directed pre-deposit in the case of demand for the normal period.

In line with its previous decisions, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit 25% of Rs.2.44 Crores within twelve weeks. Upon such deposit, the balance dues adjudged would be waived, and the recovery stayed during the pendency of the Appeal. Failure to comply with the deposit requirement would lead to the dismissal of both Appeals without further notice. The compliance was to be reported by a specified date.

This judgment illustrates the Tribunal's approach to pre-deposit requirements concerning Cenvat Credit and penalties under the relevant excise rules. It emphasizes the importance of complying with the directed deposit to secure the waiver of the balance dues and stay on recovery during the appeal process.