2007 (10) TMI 63 - AT - Central Excise

Dies cleared to independent manufacturer by respondent for manufacture on their behalf cannot be considered as job worker Non-payment of duty on such dies is unintentional Penalty set aside by Comm.(A) under Cenvat Credit Rules is upheld

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing credit of dies and removal without payment of duty for production of goods.
2. Dispute over imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Consideration of whether the dies cleared to another entity could be considered as job work.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolved around the respondent availing credit of dies and removing them without payment of duty for producing goods. The respondent had sent the dies to a manufacturer instead of a job worker, which is in violation of Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondent had wrongly availed the credit but set aside the penalty imposed, considering that the duty was reversed before the issue of the Show Cause Notice. The Ld. Commissioner also acknowledged the possibility that the dies cleared to the other entity could be considered as job work, leading to unintentional non-payment of duty by the respondent.

2. The dispute over the imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the duty amount was reversed by the respondent before the Show Cause Notice was issued. Citing a precedent, the Ld. Commissioner found that when duty is paid before the issuance of a Show Cause Notice, the imposition of interest and penalty does not apply. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 208,000 under Rule 15 was set aside based on this reasoning.

3. Another significant consideration in the judgment was whether the dies cleared to another entity could be considered as job work. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) evaluated the possibility that the dies sent to M/s. Jayshree Die Casting Pvt. Ltd. were used for manufacturing goods on behalf of the respondent, indicating a potential job work scenario. The unintentional nature of the non-payment of duty on these dies, coupled with the possibility of them being used for job work, contributed to the decision to set aside the penalty.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected based on the findings and reasoning provided by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the availing of credit, imposition of penalty, and the consideration of the dies sent to another entity potentially being for job work purposes.