2016 (6) TMI 1017 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of excise duty - bonafide belief that manufacture of threaded roof bolts and nuts are not liable to duty of excise - exclusion of bought out items - manufacturing of threaded roof bolts and nuts - levy of penalty - Held that - We find that the contention of the appellant that CENVAT credit has to be allowed on inputs and that bought out items have to be excluded from the demand raised is reasonable and acceptable. The credit admissible on inputs and value of bought out items has to be computed in order to determine the duty payable by appellants. Commissioner (Appeals) in an identical issue had held that the activity of making roof bolts did not amount to manufacture. Taking into these aspects and that the issue was an interpretational one, we hold that imposing penalty on appellants is unwarranted. Therefore the equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs imposed for not taking registration cannot sustain. While confirming the demand of duty with interest, penalty set aside. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Demand of duty on roof bolts and nuts
2. Allowance of CENVAT credit on inputs and exclusion of bought-out items
3. Imposition of penalties and redemption fine

Analysis:

1. Demand of duty on roof bolts and nuts:
The case involved the appellants, manufacturers of threaded roof bolts and nuts, who were registered as an SSI unit. The department seized finished goods from their premises, suspecting duty evasion. The appellants contended that the activity of making roof bolts did not amount to manufacture, as no new product emerged. However, the original authority confirmed a duty demand of &8377; 35,55,127 along with penalties and fines. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal sustained the duty demand but directed the Range Superintendent to recompute the duty after allowing CENVAT credit on inputs and excluding the value of bought-out items.

2. Allowance of CENVAT credit on inputs and exclusion of bought-out items:
The appellant challenged the inclusion of bought-out items in determining the duty payable. The Tribunal found this contention reasonable and acceptable. It held that CENVAT credit should be allowed on inputs used in the manufacture of final products. The Tribunal directed the re-computation of duty to exclude the value of bought-out items, ensuring a fair assessment of the duty payable by the appellants.

3. Imposition of penalties and redemption fine:
The appellants sought to set aside the penalties imposed, arguing that they were under a bona fide belief that their activity did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal considered an identical issue where the activity of making roof bolts was held not to amount to manufacture. It concluded that imposing penalties on the appellants was unwarranted, given the interpretational nature of the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under various sections. Additionally, the Tribunal found the imposition of a redemption fine unsustainable, as the appellants had no intention to evade duty. Consequently, the redemption fine was also set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals by sustaining the duty demand on roof bolts and nuts, directing re-computation of duty, setting aside penalties, and canceling the redemption fine imposed on the appellants.