2010 (2) TMI 496 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - Confiscation and penalty - The applicant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand of Rs. 47,768 and penalty of the equal amount was imposed. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. Held that - appeal against above order was to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Demand and penalty imposition due to shortage of inputs availed for credit during factory visit.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order imposing a demand and penalty for a shortage of inputs found during a factory visit. The appellant argued that the short inputs were used in the manufacturing process and attributed the shortage to handling loss, citing a previous Tribunal decision. The revenue, however, pointed out that the shortage was admitted by the Director, and duty was paid for the same. The Tribunal noted that the shortage of inputs, for which credit was availed, was confirmed during physical verification, and the Director admitted the shortage. The Tribunal distinguished the cited precedent where there was no admission of shortage or clearance without duty payment, setting aside the demand. In this case, since the shortage was admitted during physical verification, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

This judgment revolves around the issue of shortage of inputs for which credit was availed, leading to the imposition of a demand and penalty. The main contention was whether the shortage was adequately explained and whether it warranted the imposition of penalties. The appellant argued that the shortage was due to handling loss during the manufacturing process, while the revenue highlighted the admission of the shortage by the Director and subsequent duty payment. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, emphasizing the admission of shortage during physical verification and the lack of similarity with a cited precedent where no admission was made. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the cited precedent did not apply to the admitted shortage in this case.