2016 (11) TMI 776 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of cenvat credit - imposition of penalty on the assessee 25% of the Cenvat Credit reversed and penalty of 25000/- on the manager - total liability of duty exceeding SSI limit - Held that - In this case during the course of investigation certain inputs were found short. The revenue has presumed that these inputs have been used in manufacturing of final product. The Revenue has not adduced any evidence that these inputs have been used in manufacturing of final product and final product has been cleared by been produced by the Revenue therefore duty cannot be demanded merely on presumption. In that circumstance I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld qua holding that reversal of cenvat credit is sufficient in this case - With regard to the penalty imposed on the assessee and its manager I find that its case of shortage of inputs which was detected during the course of investigation and the same has not been disputed by the assessee. In that circumstances penalty is rightly imposed on the assessee and its manager therefore for the imposition of penalty I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld - appeal dismissed - imposition of penalty upheld.

Summary

Issues:
1. Shortage of inputs found during factory visit.
2. Demand of duty, interest, and penalties on the assessee and its manager.
3. Reversal of cenvat credit as sufficient defense.
4. Imposition of penalty on the assessee and its manager.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a factory visit where certain inputs were found short, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the assessee. The Revenue demanded duty as the total liability exceeded the SSI limit due to the alleged use of these inputs in manufacturing the final product. The Revenue issued a show cause notice for duty payment, interest, and penalties. The matter was adjudicated, and penalties were imposed on both the assessee and its manager based on the findings.

2. The Revenue contended that the assessee's admission of using the inputs in manufacturing the final product required duty payment, and mere reversal of cenvat credit was insufficient. Additionally, the Revenue pointed out that the assessee had shown clearance as sales in their income tax returns, further supporting their case for duty payment.

3. The assessee argued that there was no concrete evidence of the inputs being used in the final product. They claimed that the statement relied upon by the Revenue was not accurate and that the reversal of cenvat credit was adequate defense. The assessee had reversed the cenvat credit with interest before the show cause notice was issued, suggesting that no penalty should be imposed.

4. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the inputs were indeed used in manufacturing the final product. As a result, duty could not be demanded based solely on presumption. The Tribunal upheld the decision that the reversal of cenvat credit was sufficient. However, regarding the penalty imposed on the assessee and its manager for the shortage of inputs, the Tribunal found no error in the decision and upheld the penalty imposition due to the undisputed shortage.

5. Ultimately, the appeals filed by the assessee, its manager, and the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the decision regarding the reversal of cenvat credit and the imposition of penalties on the assessee and its manager based on the shortage of inputs found during the investigation.