2010 (7) TMI 133 - HC - Central Excise

Job work Records Evidence of sending of goods on job work - . A show cause notice dated 27th March, 2000 was issued to the appellant alleging therein that 1,07,925 kg of polystyrene shown to have been removed by the appellant to its job workers namely M/s Novice Polymers, was not actual so cleared and that, consequently, the appellant had availed Rs. 9,31,500/- thereon plus interest and penalty Held that - , it is a matter of record that the appellant had never filed any document in support of this plea either before the Additional Commissioner or before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is for the first time that the appellant wanted to file these documents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, rightly rejected the prayer of the appellant and held that there was no evidence on record that the goods which were sent for job workers were received by manufacturer, the Modvat Credit was wrongly availed by the appellant. Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Modvat Credit availed by the appellant and penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. Modvat Credit Availed by the Appellant:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing TV Cabinets, was accused of not actually clearing polystyrene to job workers as claimed, leading to the availing of Modvat Credit. The show cause notice alleged discrepancies in the removal of polystyrene and proposed disallowing the credit. Despite the appellant's contentions, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand for refund of Modvat Credit. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this decision, citing lack of satisfactory evidence from the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the absence of evidence supporting the appellant's claims. The High Court observed that the appellant failed to provide any supporting documents earlier and rejected the appellant's plea, considering the absence of evidence and statements from involved parties.

2. Penalty Imposed under Section 11AC of the Act:
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, arguing that it was not mentioned in the show cause notice, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The High Court acknowledged that the show cause notice invoked only Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Act, without mentioning Section 11AC. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized the necessity of specific notice for penalties under different provisions. Referring to relevant judgments, the Court highlighted the importance of adherence to procedural fairness in imposing penalties. Consequently, the High Court set aside the penalty under Section 11AC, emphasizing the appellant's right to a fair hearing and proper notice before penalties are imposed.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of Modvat Credit availed by the appellant and the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims and the necessity of specific notice for imposing penalties under different legal provisions. The appellant's appeal succeeded in setting aside the penalty under Section 11AC, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in the adjudication process.