2015 (10) TMI 571 - AT - Central Excise

Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - Penalty under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - whether main appellant was eligible to take credit on the basis of cenvatable documents showing payment of duty - Held that - duty paid on the waste kraft paper was accepted by the officer Incharge of the supplier unit M/s. SPPML. Appellant was not expected to know beyond the facts that inputs they received are covered under a valid duty paying documents. The ratio laid down in the above case laws relied upon by the main appellant is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. On merit appellant was eligible to take CENVAT credit. On the issue of time bar, it is observed that the show cause notice was issued on 05.04.2010 for the period March 2005 to March 2007. No evidence could be brought on record that the main appellant and its Director were aware that inputs received was as a result of an activity not amounting to manufacture. The demand issued is clearly time barred as extended period is not imposable in this case and no penalties can be imposed upon the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of CENVAT credit to the main appellant
- Imposition of penalties on the main appellant and director
- Whether segregation of imported scrap amounts to manufacture
- Eligibility of the main appellant to take credit based on cenvatable documents
- Applicability of extended period for invoking penalties

Analysis:

The appeals were filed against the order disallowing CENVAT credit to the main appellant and imposing penalties. The main appellant, a manufacturer of kraft paper, argued that the credit was taken based on proper duty-paying documents and that they were not aware if the segregation of imported waste paper amounted to manufacture. The appellant contended that they were entitled to the credit as the duty was paid, citing relevant case laws. The Revenue argued that segregation did not amount to manufacture and that the appellant failed to verify if the inputs were duty-free. The issue was whether the appellant was eligible for the credit based on the duty-paying documents. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not required to go beyond the cenvatable documents to verify the origin of the inputs as long as the supplier was genuine and duty was paid. The Tribunal cited case laws supporting the appellant's position and held that the appellant was eligible for the credit.

Regarding the time bar issue, the show cause notice was issued for a past period, but no evidence showed the appellant's awareness of any duty evasion. The Tribunal concluded that the demand was time-barred, and penalties could not be imposed. Therefore, the appeals were allowed based on the observations and settled legal principles.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeals and overturning the disallowance of CENVAT credit and penalties. The decision was based on the appellant's eligibility for credit as per duty-paying documents and the absence of evidence for imposing penalties due to the time-barred nature of the demand.