9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 760 - AT - Central ExciseUtilization of CENVAT Credit - utilization of credit during the default period of monthly payment of duty in terms of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - matter sub-judice before Supreme Court - penalty - redemption fine - Held that - The issue that whether the appellant is entitled to utilize the cenvat credit during the default period of monthly payment of duty, the case is pending before Hon ble Supreme Court and the judgment of Indsur Global Ltd. 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT is though in favour of assessee but Hon ble Supreme Court decision is awaited - In these circumstances, deciding the matter before deciding by Hon ble Supreme Court, will be pre-mature - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall pass a fresh order after the outcome of the case of Indsur Global Ltd. Penalty u/r 25 - Held that - The issue involved is of strict interpretation of Rule 8(3A) on which different views were interpreted at different court, therefore, there is no malafide intention on the part of appellant. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Rule 25 is set aside. Redemption fine - Held that - Since the goods were not available, no redemption fine could have been imposed as held by Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shivkrupa Ispat Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE & Custom-Nasik 2009 (1) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI , accordingly, the redemption fine is also set aside. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to utilize cenvat credit during default period of monthly duty payment under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Justifiability of redemption fine in absence of available goods. Analysis: Issue 1: Entitlement to utilize cenvat credit during default period of monthly duty payment under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002: The appellant claimed entitlement to utilize cenvat credit during a default period of monthly duty payment. The appellant's counsel cited various judgments supporting this claim, including those of Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd, Space Telelink Ltd, Shri Dheeraj Lulla, BBF Home Care Products, Indsur Global Ltd, and Sausashtra Cement Ltd. However, the Revenue objected, referring to the pending appeal of Indsur Global Ltd's case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority until the Supreme Court's decision on the Indsur Global Ltd case is available. The Tribunal also noted that different courts had interpreted Rule 8(3A) differently, indicating no malafide intention on the appellant's part. Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002: The appellant faced a penalty of ?20 Lakhs under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant's counsel argued against the penalty, emphasizing that the goods were not available for seizure or confiscation, making the redemption fine of ?25 Lakhs unjustifiable. The Tribunal, considering the strict interpretation of Rule 8(3A) and the differing court views on the matter, set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25, ruling in favor of the appellant. Issue 3: Justifiability of redemption fine in absence of available goods: Regarding the redemption fine of ?25 Lakhs, the Tribunal referenced the case law of Shivkrupa Ispat Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE & Custom-Nasik, where it was held that in the absence of available goods, no redemption fine could be imposed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the redemption fine, aligning with the precedent set by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the matter related to cenvat credit to the adjudicating authority pending the Supreme Court's decision, set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 due to differing interpretations of the law, and dismissed the redemption fine based on the absence of available goods. The appeal was disposed of accordingly and remanded to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings.
|
