2015 (2) TMI 920 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - main noticee was purchasing cenvatable invoices from the registered dealers and availing cenvat credit thereof without receiving inputs in the factory premises - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - penal provisions on the Respondent would be considered after examining all the facts and circumstances of the case in totality of the main noticee. So, while directing the case of the main noticee in de-novo adjudication, it is required to consider the case of the respondent. In view of that, we modify the impugned order to the extent that the adjudicating authority shall also consider the case of the respondent in de-novo proceedings. It is directed that the adjudicating authority during the de-novo adjudication would take into consideration the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the submissions made by the learned advocate of the Respondent before the Tribunal. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against setting aside penalty on authorized signatory of registered dealer

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside a penalty of Rs. 20 Lakh imposed on the authorized signatory of a registered dealer. The main noticee, engaged in the manufacture of Dye Intermediates and Allied Chemicals, was found to be availing CENVAT credit without receiving inputs in the factory premises. The Adjudicating authority confirmed demand of CENVAT credit and imposed penalties on the main noticee and individuals associated with it. However, the penalty on the authorized signatory of the registered dealer was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Revenue's appeal.

The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter in a piecemeal manner, emphasizing that the case of the main noticee was connected to the respondent who issued invoices. The decision to set aside the penalty on the respondent would impact the de-novo proceedings. On the other hand, the advocate for the respondent contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) provided detailed reasoning for setting aside the penalty on the respondent and cited various Tribunal decisions in support.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submissions. It was decided that penal provisions on the respondent should be considered in conjunction with the case of the main noticee during the de-novo adjudication. Therefore, the impugned order was modified to ensure that the adjudicating authority would evaluate the case of the respondent in the de-novo proceedings, taking into account the Commissioner (Appeals)'s observations and the submissions made by the respondent's advocate.

The Tribunal clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and allowed the Revenue's appeal by way of remand. The decision highlighted the interconnected nature of the cases of the main noticee and the respondent, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive examination of all facts and circumstances during the adjudication process.