2007 (2) TMI 33 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant wins appeal against penalty imposition, emphasizes intent under Cenvat Credit Rules

The appellant contested the disallowance of Cenvat credit and penalty imposition under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the ... Cenvat/Modvat – Revenue contended that appellant has wrongly availed the credit of duty and accordingly penalty were imposed – Authority decided that appellant has no intention to evade payment and allow the appeal with consequential relief. Issues involved:1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit and penalty imposition under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant contested the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 18,174 and the penalty imposed under Rule 13(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellant availed credit on 'shelling charges' for sugar mill machinery parts received from a job worker. The Revenue alleged lack of details on new spares used during shelling, machining, and grooving, leading to the disallowance of credit.2. The issue was compared with the decision in Bharat Wagon & Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Patna, where it was held that re-shelling of old Sugar Mill Roller did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal negated the Revenue's claim that the process constituted manufacture. The appellant's counsel argued against the penalty, citing no intention to evade duty.3. Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, was referenced, outlining penalties for wrongful Cenvat credit utilization. Sub-rules (1) and (2) detailed penalties for different breaches, with sub-rule (2) focusing on fraud or intention to evade duty. The show cause notice mentioned Rule 13(1) for imposing the penalty.4. The judgment clarified that the appellant's case did not involve intention to evade duty, falling under Rule 13(1) for wrong Cenvat credit availing. It distinguished between penalties under sub-rules (1) and (2), emphasizing that the penalty should not exceed the wrongly availed credit amount. The authorities overlooked this distinction, leading to the penalty reduction to Rs. 10,000 under Rule 13(1) from Rs. 18,174, ensuring justice was served.5. The final order confirmed the penalty modification and disposed of the appeal accordingly, emphasizing the importance of correctly applying penalty provisions based on the nature of the breach and intention to evade duty.(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 12-2-2007)