2015 (10) TMI 144 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Imposition of penalty - Defective goods - whether the appellant has contravened the provisions of rule 11(2) of the Central Excise rules 2002 or not - Held that - On going through the Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules 2002 and on verification of the invoices in question I find that all the details required under Rule 11(2) of Centra Excise Rules 2002 has been fulfilled. M/s. NAW has shown purchase returns. This information was not required to be shown in the invoice as per Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Therefore, I hold that appellant has not contravened the provision of Rule 11(2) of the Rules. In these circumstances, I hold that M/s. Sadhu Forgings Ltd. has availed Cenvat Credit correctly as there is no dispute regarding payment of duty by M/s. NAW on these goods and M/s. Sadhu Forgings Ltd. has cleared goods on payment of duty after removing the defects. As appellants have not contravened the provisions of Rule 11(2) therefore penalty on all the appellants are not imposable. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty and penalty confirmed against M/s. Sadhu Forgings Ltd.
- Denial of Cenvat Credit on duty paid goods.
- Imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Analysis:
1. Duty and Penalty Confirmed: The case involved appeals against an order confirming duty and penalty against M/s. Sadhu Forgings Ltd. and the appellants. The situation arose when defective goods were returned after job work, and duty was paid on these goods. M/s. Sadhu Forgings Ltd. claimed Cenvat Credit on the duty paid by the original sender. The revenue contended that as the goods were defective, the original sender should not have issued invoices, and Cenvat Credit should not have been claimed. This led to the initiation of proceedings and the imposition of penalties.

2. Cenvat Credit Dispute: The counsel for M/s. Sadhu Forgings Ltd. argued that they were entitled to claim Cenvat Credit as they received goods with duty paid, rectified the defects, and cleared the goods after paying duty. It was emphasized that the Cenvat Credit was correctly availed. On the other hand, the counsel for the original sender argued that penalties should not be imposed on the buyer of the goods as per Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Additionally, the nature of the transaction was questioned, stating that the goods were never purchased from M/s. Sadhu Forgings Ltd.

3. Penalties Imposition: The dispute also involved the imposition of penalties on the appellants. The argument was made that penalties should not be imposed on the buyer of the goods but on the manufacturer or producer. Reference was made to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, and it was contended that the explanation for imposing penalties under this rule was not provided. The opposing party argued that penalties were rightly imposed due to the contravention of rules and the incorrect description of goods in the invoices.

4. Judgment and Conclusion: After hearing all parties and considering the submissions, the judge examined Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules 2002. It was concluded that all required details in the invoices were fulfilled, and the appellant had not contravened the provisions of this rule. As a result, it was held that M/s. Sadhu Forgings Ltd. correctly availed Cenvat Credit, and penalties on the appellants were deemed not imposable. The impugned order confirming duty and penalties was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, legal provisions invoked, and the final decision rendered by the tribunal.