2008 (7) TMI 267 - HC - Central Excise

Inputs procured from 100% EOU, prepared the invoices indicating 16% rate of duty which are applicable to any DTA unit recipient-assessee of the inputs was not eligible for entire 19.6% credit - tribunal set aside penalty holding that recipient-assessee was genuinely under the impression that they were getting goods from a DTA unit and are eligible for full credit - error having been committed by the supplier - Tribunal findings based on the facts available on record, require no interference

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of setting aside penalty imposed on respondent for duty payment.
2. Justification of setting aside penalty imposed on respondent for excess Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-Revenue raised two questions regarding the penalty imposed on the respondent. Firstly, whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty when duty was paid before the show cause notice. Secondly, whether the penalty for taking excess Cenvat credit without reasonable steps was rightly set aside by granting the benefit of doubt to the respondent. The Tribunal summarized the facts, including the purchase of raw materials by the appellant from a 100% EOU at a lower duty rate, leading to confusion about eligibility for credit. The original authority and Commissioner upheld the duty and penalty, but the Tribunal found no evidence of the appellant's knowledge about the supplier being a 100% EOU, granting the benefit of doubt and canceling the penalty.

2. After considering submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the error in law was on the part of the raw material supplier, not the respondent. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence showing the respondent's knowledge of the supplier's status, leading to the benefit of doubt being in favor of the respondent. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty had been paid before the show cause notice, further supporting the cancellation of the penalty. The judgment highlighted that no error in law was committed by the respondent, and there was no justification for interference. The Tribunal's decision was based on the facts and evidence available, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The judgment clarified that the proposed questions did not arise from the Tribunal's order as they were statements of fact rather than reasons for canceling the penalty. It was emphasized that the findings were based on the evidence and record, indicating no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalties imposed on the respondent based on the lack of knowledge and the payment of duty before the show cause notice.