Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1945 - CESTAT MUMBAIRestoration of appeal - denial of MODVAT credit - case of revenue is that the appellant had availed Modvat credit on the basis of invoices procured for HR/CR coils/plates/sheets of particular thickness, which are not required for manufacture of their final product i.e. Front Axle - time limitation - penalty. HELD THAT:- The show-cause notice dated 3rd November, 2000, had enclosed the statement at Annexure-A, mentioning the thickness / gauge of M.S. sheets procured by the appellant during the disputed period for the manufacture of final product. The said annexure confirmed that in some cases, the thickness was not confirming to the required size of 6 mm and in some other cases, it has been described that there is no mention about the thickness in the invoices. For ascertaining the correct position regarding the thickness of coils supplied by the dealers to the appellant, I have perused some of sample copy of invoices available in the case records - it is evident from the invoice dated 19.11.1998 that the appellant had purchased H.R. Coils of below 5 mm in thickness, which was not suitable for use in the manufacture of automobile axle. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Upon proper investigation, since the officers of DGCEI came to know about the actual requirement of thickness of H.R. Coils in manufacture of final product and thereafter, proceedings were initiated against the appellant within the normal period prescribed under erstwhile Rule 57(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, I am of the considered view that the adjudged demands confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation can stand for judicial scrutiny. Imposition of penalty on Shri Uday kumar Vinzanekar, Director of the assessee Company - HELD THAT:- The original authority has recorded the findings that Revenue had not made the said Director as respondent during the course of initial show cause proceedings and, accordingly the Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2004 had not specifically recorded any findings with regard to imposition of penalty on such Director - Further, in the present appeal petition, the Revenue has also not made such Director as party to the appeal. In absence of non-filing of any specific appeal by Revenue, setting aside of proposal for imposition of penalty on the Director cannot be interfered with at this juncture. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.
|