2017 (7) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs - benefit of reduced penalties - SSI exemption - N/N. 8/03-CE dt.1.3.2003 - Held that - it was held by the Tribunal in the case of Sridhar Paints Co.P.Ltd. 2005 (11) TMI 143 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , the benefit of CENVAT credit on evidence of payment of duty on inputs is allowable even where goods are removed clandestinely - In the present appeal, the appellant No.1 have produced detailed tables purported to be of their inputs and on that basis calculated the CENVAT credit on their inputs. Admittedly, the said document was not produced before the Commissioner (Appeals). They would also need to produce prescribed documents showing proof of duty paid on inputs in support of their claim - matter on remand. Reduced penalties - Held that - no documentary proof or even dates for said payments have been produced - plea for reduced penalty cannot be examined in absence of these documents/details of payments. Appellants are therefore directed to submit documentary proof of payment of duty, interest and penalty paid by them before the Commissioner (Appeals) with clear indication of dates and amounts of payment of each - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals pertaining to denial of exemption Notification NO.8/03-CE, duty liability, and penalties; Cenvat credit on inputs; reduced penalty and waiver of penalties; documentary proof of payments for duty, interest, and penalty; remand for re-examination of Cenvat credit and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved a common show cause notice and Order-in-Appeal regarding the denial of exemption Notification NO.8/03-CE, imposition of Central Excise duty, and penalties on multiple appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the duty liability and penalties, leading to the filing of appeals by the aggrieved parties.

2. The primary issue revolved around the denial of Cenvat credit on inputs to the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected this claim due to lack of evidence establishing the duty paid character of inputs used in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of producing documentary evidence, such as duty paid invoice copies, to support the claim for Cenvat credit. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-examination, with a directive for the appellants to provide sufficient documentary evidence of duty payment on inputs.

3. Another significant aspect was the plea for reduced penalties by appellant No.1, who claimed to have discharged the duty liability, interest, and a portion of the penalty within 30 days of the show cause notice. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of documentary proof or details of payment dates. The appellants were instructed to submit clear documentary evidence of payments made for duty, interest, and penalty, including specific dates and amounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) was tasked with re-evaluating the eligibility of appellants for reduced penalties under Section 11A (1) and the two provisos of Section 11A (2).

4. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of denial of Cenvat credit on inputs and penalties, remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on these issues. The appellants were granted a fair opportunity to present their case, emphasizing the importance of complying with the evidentiary requirements and providing necessary documentation for payment verification.

5. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of with a directive for the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the issues of Cenvat credit and penalties in accordance with the observations made by the Tribunal and as per the legal provisions, ensuring a fair and thorough assessment based on the evidence presented.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, evidentiary requirements, and procedural steps outlined in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and its implications for the appellants involved.