2015 (10) TMI 675 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Held that - Appellants are ready and willing to furnish an undertaking to this Court to comply with the other direction and order of the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today, but to comply with the same accounts which have been freezed by the Revenue/Department, be de-freezed so as to allow to operate the same. This request is opposed by Mr. Mishra. It is submitted by him that the assessee can pay the amounts from other sources and there is no need to defreeze the account - Appeal raises substantial questions of law - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002
2. Applicability of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002
3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002
4. Correctness of penalty imposition under Rule 25 for irregular availment of Cenvat credit
5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

Analysis:
1. The High Court admitted the appeal based on substantial questions of law raised by the appellant. The first issue pertained to the sustainability of the Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the violation of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Court decided to consider this issue for further examination.

2. The second issue revolved around the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decision on the applicability of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in a scenario where excess Cenvat credit was availed and utilized for duty payment. The Court agreed to delve into this issue to determine its legal sustainability.

3. Moving on to the third issue, the Court questioned the justification of the Appellate Tribunal's imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This penalty was imposed due to the appellant's mistaken excess credit availment, which was voluntarily disclosed and repaid with interest. The Court aimed to assess the correctness of this penalty imposition.

4. The fourth issue involved the correctness of penalizing the appellant under Rule 25 for irregular availment of Cenvat credit. The Court sought to determine if the penalty imposition was appropriate in this specific case.

5. Lastly, the Court deliberated on the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for inadvertent irregular credit availment. The Court intended to analyze the justification and correctness of this penalty imposition in the given circumstances.

The Court granted limited interim relief by staying the recovery of penalties imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant was allowed to operate frozen accounts upon filing an undertaking to comply with the Tribunal's order within a specified timeframe. The Court's decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties while ensuring compliance with legal obligations.