2017 (1) TMI 708 - AT - Central Excise

Stock transfer - Transfer of goods from one unit to another without payment of duty - Held that - the Assessee has neither maintained any record of manufacture and clearance at their Kajipur unit, nor recorded its receipt and further use at their Kheda unit. Also no excise invoice was prepared for the said movement of the goods and this violation continued for a considerable length of time. Thus, on this count, I do not see any merit in the appeal filed by the Assessee, assailing the impugned order. since the entire amount of duty and interest has been discharged by the Assessee, therefore, they are liable to the benefit of reduction of penalty to 25% of the confirmed demand. With regard to the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on the supplementary invoices issued by Kajipur unit, I find that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of United Phosphorus Ltd 2013 (11) TMI 1530 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that when there is simply a stock transfer the prohibition under Rule 7(1)(b) will not be applicable - Kheda unit is eligible to the credit on the supplementary invoice issued by the Kajipur Unit. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against OIAs passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) by both Revenue and Assessee.
2. Duty payment and record maintenance issues related to the manufacture and clearance of EPL substance between units.
3. Denial of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoices by Kheda unit.
4. Bonafide belief defense by Assessee.
5. Justification of duty confirmation and penalty imposition.
6. Extending the benefit of penalty reduction by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
7. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoices as per Tribunal's decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against OIAs passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), with one appeal by Revenue and two by the Assessee. The disputes involved duty payment and record maintenance issues between the Kajipura and Kheda units regarding the manufacture and clearance of EPL substance without payment of duty and proper record-keeping.

2. The Assessee cleared goods from the Kajipura unit to the Kheda unit without payment of duty, leading to a demand for duty payment and penalty imposition. The Assessee claimed a bonafide belief in the duty exemption for inter-unit clearances, but the lack of records and excise invoices raised concerns. The learned Advocate argued for the Assessee, citing a Tribunal decision supporting their case.

3. The Revenue contended that the Assessee's lack of record-keeping and contraventions justified the duty confirmation and penalty imposition. The Revenue challenged the penalty reduction granted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the seriousness of the Assessee's non-compliance.

4. After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found no merit in the Assessee's appeal regarding the bonafide belief defense. The Tribunal upheld the duty confirmation and penalty imposition due to the lack of records and non-compliance at the Kajipura and Kheda units.

5. The Tribunal agreed with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the penalty reduction for the Assessee. However, the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoices was upheld based on a Tribunal decision, allowing the Kheda unit to claim credit.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal related to CENVAT Credit eligibility but rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Assessee against duty confirmation and penalty imposition, respectively. The decision was pronounced in the open court, resolving the issues raised in the appeals effectively.