2011 (4) TMI 663 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation and imposition of personal penalty - Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC - SSI - shortage of inputs - the assessee had taken cenvat credit on the inputs which were sold without payment of duty - The assessee also did not reverse the cenvat credits on inputs contained in similar finished goods lying on 31.03.05 while opting out of the cenvat facility - It is a fact that the duty was deposited after the short payment was detected by the Revenue - The original adjudicating authority has rightly relied upon the judgment in the case of Sony India Vs. CCE Delhi (2004 -TMI - 46966 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the appellant became liable to pay duty under the circumstances which warrant application of the provision of Section 11A(1) - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cenvat credit reversal on shortage of inputs.
2. Recovery of cenvat credit amount.
3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules.
4. Confiscation and personal penalty imposition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Cenvat credit reversal on shortage of inputs
The case involved M/s. Pop-Flon Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, engaging in the manufacture of Teflon Lined Equipments. The appellant crossed the exemption limit and failed to reverse the cenvat credit of Rs.1,42,922/- while working under small scale exemption. The shortage of raw materials led to a duty amounting to Rs.1,32,800/- and excess quantity of finished goods valued at Rs.4,46,449/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand for reversing the cenvat credit due to the shortage of inputs, stating that if inputs are missing, no cenvat credit can be claimed.

Issue 2: Recovery of cenvat credit amount
The statement of Shri Ashok Gandhi revealed that raw materials were cleared without payment of central excise duty or proper documentation, strengthening the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's failure to reverse cenvat credits on sold inputs and finished goods led to the confirmation of the recoverable cenvat credit amount of Rs.1,32,800/-, supported by relevant legal precedents.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules
The Commissioner (Appeals) found the penalty under Section 11AC not imposable but confirmed the penalty as a contravention of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant's actions of taking cenvat credit on sold inputs without duty payment and not reversing credits on similar finished goods were deemed justifiable for imposing penalties under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, read with Section 11AC.

Issue 4: Confiscation and personal penalty imposition
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of finished goods and the imposition of personal penalty on Shri Ashok Gandhi, concurring with the Commissioner's findings and justifications. The Tribunal rejected the appeal partially, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of cenvat credit reversal, recovery of cenvat credit amount, imposition of penalties under the Cenvat Credit Rules, and the confiscation with personal penalty imposition, providing detailed reasoning and legal references to support the decisions made by the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals).