2006 (8) TMI 40 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Credit of own supplementary invoice is not permissible Suo motu refund is not admissible on ground that on the reduction price, appellant availed credit of excess duty paid in PLA By issuance of revised SCN the previous SCN deemed to have been withdrawn

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against demand and penalty for availing credit without proper documentation, validity of show cause notice, refund claim eligibility, applicability of Section 11B, provisional assessment, issuance of multiple show cause notices.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an order confirming a demand and penalty for availing credit without proper documentation. The appellant claimed to have taken credit based on supplementary invoices but failed to follow the correct procedure. The lower authorities upheld the demand and penalty. The appellant did not appear despite notice but requested a decision on merit. The learned DR argued that availing credit without a TR-6 challan is against Central Excise Law norms. The appellant's main arguments were the invalidity of the show cause notice and eligibility for a refund due to excess duty payment under provisional assessment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's challenge lacked legal backing. Availing credit without a TR-6 challan was improper as per Central Excise Rules. The appellant's contention of being eligible for a refund was rejected. The Tribunal noted that the appellant should have filed a refund claim with the lower authorities. The appellant's claim of provisional assessment was dismissed as they had not opted for it as per the law. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the validity of the show cause notice, citing precedents and confirming the Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the order upheld based on legal principles and precedents cited.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order confirming the demand and penalty against the appellant for improper credit availing. The decision was based on the appellant's failure to follow proper procedures, lack of legal backing for refund claims, and the validity of the show cause notice. The Tribunal's detailed analysis considered Central Excise Rules, legal precedents, and the appellant's arguments, ultimately dismissing the appeal. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal norms and procedures in availing credits and addressing show cause notices in excise matters.