2018 (5) TMI 1667 - AT - Central Excise

Inadmissible Cenvat credit without receiving any input - No proper documentation - Penalty invoked - invocation of rule 37 of CEA - imported goods further used in the manufacture of finished goods in India - Held that - It is undisputed fact that goods seized by the department happened to be imported goods, which were not accounted for in the books of the account of the appellant. After perusal of rule 25 and of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 and 2 (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 it is clear that the provisions contained therein are applicable only to the excisable goods. In other words these provisions cannot be extended to imported goods without mentioning the charge in the SCN about the provisions of Customs Act made applicable to Central Excise matters vide Notification, which is not the case here - It is on record that the goods seized and confiscated are imported goods, and therefore, the provision of these Rules, 25/26 is not applicable to the sized imported consignment in the case of hand. Penalty on the Sh. Ajay Mehra - Held that - As no contravention of any provisions of Central Excise Act and Rule have been found in the case of seized goods, there is no question of imposition of any penalty on the Sh. Ajay Mehra under the provisions of Central Excise Act, Central Excise Rule and Cenvat credit Rules. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of imported goods under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule, 2002
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rule

Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The appeal was filed against an order upholding the demand of Central Excise duty and penalty imposed on the appellants for irregularities related to the purchase of goods without proper documentation. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing CP bath fittings, faced allegations of availing inadmissible Cenvat credit and non-accountal of imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeal) rejected the appellant's claim regarding the imported goods, citing discrepancies in documentation and location of seized goods. The impugned order affirmed the confiscation of imported goods under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule, 2002. The appellant argued against the confiscation, stating the goods were cleared on payment of Customs duty and there was an inventory mix-up at the exporter's end.

Imposition of Penalty:
The penalty was imposed on the Director of the appellant company under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules for non-accountal of imported goods. The appellant challenged the penalty, arguing that the Show Cause Notice did not justify confiscation under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule, 2002. The impugned order upheld the penalty imposition, citing fraudulent involvement in Cenvat credit. However, the appellate tribunal ruled that the provisions of Rule 25/26 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 were not applicable to imported goods without specific mention in the Show Cause Notice. The appeal was allowed as no contraventions of Central Excise Act and Rules were found in the case of seized goods, leading to the dismissal of the penalty on the Director.

This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to proper documentation and legal provisions in excise matters, emphasizing the need for clear allegations in Show Cause Notices and specific applicability of rules to imported goods. The decision provides clarity on the confiscation and penalty imposition related to imported goods under Central Excise Rules, ultimately allowing the appeal based on the lack of contraventions in the case of seized goods.