2025 (6) TMI 120 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of penalty on the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - inadmissible refund claims availed under the Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - goods not manufactured - area based exemption wrongly availed - HELD THAT - It is found that though the department has filed appeals before the Hon ble Jammu Kashmir High Court against the order dated 23.05.2018 of the Tribunal but there is no stay in favour of the department by the Hon ble High Court. Reference made to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/S ECKO CABLES (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX LUDHIANA 2024 (1) TMI 1116 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH wherein on identical facts this Tribunal has examined the preliminary objection of the department that since the matter is pending before the Hon ble Jammu Kashmir High Court the appeal should be kept in abeyance; the said preliminary objection was rejected by this Tribunal. Conclusion - The impugned orders imposing the penalty on the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 are not sustainable in law therefore set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellants is sustainable in law, given that the penalty was imposed consequentially based on the findings against M/s V.K. Metal Works, Jammu.

- Whether the appellants, who had availed CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices issued by M/s V.K. Metal Works, Jammu, can be held liable for penalty when the principal case against M/s V.K. Metal Works was found to lack evidence of fraudulent manufacture or bogus transactions.

- Whether the appeals filed by the department against the Tribunal's order in the principal case pending before the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court justify keeping the present appeals in abeyance.

- Whether the findings of clandestine removal and bogus manufacturing activity alleged against M/s V.K. Metal Works were supported by positive and affirmative evidence.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Sustainability of penalty imposed on appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The penalty under Rule 26 is imposed for wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit or contravention of provisions of the Central Excise Rules. The principal case against M/s V.K. Metal Works involved allegations of bogus manufacturing and fraudulent passing of CENVAT Credit, which formed the basis for consequential penalties on the appellants.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the principal case decided by the Principal Bench in Final Order No. 51982-51997/2018 dated 23.05.2018, which held that there was no evidence to establish that M/s V.K. Metal Works engaged in bogus manufacturing or fraudulent credit passing. The Tribunal noted that the appellants' penalties were imposed solely on the basis of the findings in the principal case.

Key evidence and findings: The Principal Bench found documentary evidence of copper scrap being duly transported to the factory of M/s V.K. Metal Works, and that allegations of clandestine removal were unsubstantiated due to lack of positive and affirmative evidence showing receipt, utilization, manufacture, transportation, and buyer identification. The Tribunal relied on these findings to conclude that the penalty imposed on the appellants was not sustainable.

Application of law to facts: Since the principal case did not establish fraudulent activity or bogus manufacture, the consequential penalties on the appellants who availed CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices from M/s V.K. Metal Works could not be sustained. The Tribunal applied settled principles that serious allegations like clandestine removal require affirmative proof, which was absent.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued for abeyance of appeals due to pending High Court appeals against the principal case decision. The Tribunal rejected this, noting no stay was granted by the High Court and that similar appeals had been decided by various benches relying on the principal case decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of stay and prior decisions favored allowing the appeals rather than keeping them pending.

Conclusions: The penalty imposed on the appellants under Rule 26 was set aside as unsustainable in law, given the lack of evidence of fraudulent transactions in the principal case.

Issue 2: Reliance on principal case decision and effect of pending High Court appeals

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle of judicial precedent and finality of decisions unless stayed or overturned by higher courts applies. The Apex Court judgment in Union of India vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. was cited regarding the treatment of pending appeals before higher courts.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that although the department had filed appeals before the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court against the Tribunal's decision in the principal case, no stay was granted. The Tribunal held that in absence of stay, the principal case decision remains binding and applicable to the present appeals.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal referred to a recent decision in M/s Ecko Cables (P) Ltd. where the preliminary objection to keep the appeal in abeyance was rejected on identical grounds. The Tribunal highlighted that other benches have decided similar cases in favor of appellants relying on the principal case despite pending High Court appeals.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that pending appeals without stay do not prevent the adjudication of related cases. It found no justification to hold the present appeals in abeyance.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's prayer for abeyance was denied, emphasizing consistent judicial practice and absence of stay orders.

Conclusions: The appeals were allowed to proceed and decided on merits without abeyance despite pending High Court appeals.

Issue 3: Evidence supporting allegations of clandestine removal and bogus manufacture

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The law requires positive and affirmative evidence to substantiate serious allegations such as clandestine removal or bogus manufacture. The Tribunal relied on precedents including R.A Castings Pvt. Ltd. upheld by High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide documentary or affirmative evidence proving receipt of raw materials, their utilization, actual manufacture, transportation, or identification of buyers in the principal case. The allegations were thus unsubstantiated.

Key evidence and findings: The Principal Bench's detailed examination of records showed copper scrap was transported to the factory and manufacturing activity was not a sham. The Tribunal noted that computer printouts alone were insufficient evidence.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that serious allegations require strong evidence and found the Revenue's case deficient.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on computer printouts and presumptions was rejected in favor of requiring affirmative proof.

Conclusions: The findings of clandestine removal and bogus manufacture were set aside, undermining the basis for penalty on appellants.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "There is no evidence to establish that M/s V.K. Metal Works have claimed bogus manufacturing activity and have passed on CENVAT Credit in the fraudulent manner."

- "The allegations of clandestine removal are serious allegations and are required to be confirmed on the basis of positive and affirmative evidences. Even in the above referred case of M/s V.K. Metals and Others, the clandestine removal findings stands set aside by the Tribunal by observing that there has to be shown the receipt of raw material, utilization of the same, actual manufacture of the finished goods, the evidence of transportation and identity of the buyers etc. Inasmuch as nothing has been shown in the present case by the Revenue, we find no reasons to confirm the demand."

- "Though the department has filed appeals before the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court against the order dated 23.05.2018 of the Tribunal, but there is no stay in favour of the department by the Hon'ble High Court."

- "Different Benches of the Tribunal have decided the cases of other customers of M/s V.K Metal Works as there was no stay. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made by the Department to keep this case pending."

- The Tribunal established the core principle that penalty under Rule 26 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a principal case where no evidence of fraud or bogus manufacture was found and that serious allegations require positive proof.

- Final determination: The impugned orders imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellants were set aside and the appeals allowed.