2019 (6) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Fraudulent availing and transfer of CENVAT credit - personal penalty on appellant - HELD THAT - The allegation against the Appellant Pankaj Bansal, Director of M/s Shivangi Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd has been established after detailed analysis of evidence on record by the authorities below. No contrary evidence has been placed by the Appellant to absolve himself from the allegation of his involvement in the fraudulent transfer and availing of CENVAT Credit. The imposition of personal penalty on the Appellant is justified - penalty reduced to ₹ 1,50,000/- - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegation of fraudulent CENVAT Credit availed by the Appellant
- Imposition of personal penalty on the Appellant
- Double jeopardy concern due to imposition of penalty twice for the same offence

Allegation of fraudulent CENVAT Credit availed by the Appellant:
The case involved the Appellant, a Director of a company registered for manufacturing M.S. Ingots and TMT Bars, who availed CENVAT Credit based on invoices from a registered dealer. The Department discovered that the Appellant had fraudulently claimed CENVAT Credit without actually receiving the inputs mentioned in the invoices for manufacturing finished goods. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of inadmissible CENVAT Credit, leading to confirmation of demand and imposition of personal penalty on the Appellant.

Imposition of personal penalty on the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that another show cause notice from a different Commissionerate had already imposed a penalty on him for the same set of allegations arising from the same investigation. The Appellant contended that penalizing him again for the same offence would amount to double jeopardy. The Tribunal acknowledged the Appellant's argument but upheld the imposition of a penalty considering the evidence and lack of contradictory evidence provided by the Appellant. However, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the Appellant to ?1,50,000, taking into account the penalty previously imposed by the other Commissionerate.

Double jeopardy concern due to imposition of penalty twice for the same offence:
The Appellant raised a valid concern regarding being penalized twice for the same offence. The Tribunal recognized the issue and reduced the penalty on the Appellant to avoid punishing him excessively. By considering the penalty already imposed in a related case and adjusting the penalty amount accordingly, the Tribunal addressed the double jeopardy concern and modified the impugned order to reduce the penalty to ?1,50,000. The appeal was partly allowed, reflecting a balance between imposing penalties for the offence and preventing unjust duplication of penalties on the Appellant.