9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 219 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the credit wrongly availed on goods utilised in a process that did not amount to manufacture - penalty u/r 5 of the CCR 2004 read with section 11AC of the CEA 1944 - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-V 2015 (9) TMI 403 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that Though the aggregates are exempted from duty, the assessees are paying duty on the aggregates used for manufacture of tractors cleared for export. They are paying this duty and, then, claiming drawback though the duty is not chargeable at all on the aggregates. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of CENVAT credit on goods utilized in a process not amounting to manufacture. 2. Imposition of penalty under rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Issue 1: Disallowance of CENVAT Credit: The case involved an appeal by M/s Uttam Galva Steels Limited against an order disallowing CENVAT credit of ?17,77,180 on the grounds that the credit was wrongly availed on goods used in a process that did not amount to manufacture. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the lower authority's decision. The appellant argued citing a previous Tribunal decision, while the Authorized Representative relied on a High Court decision emphasizing the consequences of absolute exemption from duty payment. The High Court's decision in a similar case highlighted the importance of the duty liability being discharged more than the CENVAT credit availed on inputs. The Tribunal considered previous judgments and concluded that the appellant had indeed discharged the duty liability, leading to the allowance of the appeal. Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty: In addition to the disallowance of CENVAT credit, a penalty of a similar amount was imposed under rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal effectively nullified the penalty imposition. The Tribunal referenced various judgments, including those by the High Court and the Apex Court, to support the decision to overturn the penalty imposition along with the disallowance of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal's ruling was based on the principle that once duty liability is discharged, questioning the availing of CENVAT credit is not justified. Therefore, in light of the established precedents and legal interpretations, the penalty imposition was deemed unwarranted. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai, in the case of M/s Uttam Galva Steels Limited, reversed the disallowance of CENVAT credit and the penalty imposed, based on the discharge of duty liability exceeding the credit availed on inputs. The judgment highlighted the significance of duty payment in relation to CENVAT credit availment and referenced various legal precedents to support the decision. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing CENVAT credit and duty liability in cases where the process may not amount to manufacture, emphasizing the importance of compliance with relevant regulations and established legal interpretations.
|
