2007 (2) TMI 46 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in duty demand appeal, clarifies inter-unit transfer rules

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant against an Order confirming duty demand, penalty imposition, and interest demand by the ... Cenvat/Modvat – Alleged that appellant were transferred the goods to other inputs and accordingly required to reversed the 115% of credit taken – Authority after considering all the factor allow the appeal with consequential relief. Issues: Duty demand, penalty imposition, interest demand, transfer of inputs between manufacturing units, justification for paying/reversing duty, interpretation of rules regarding inter-unit transfers.In this case, the appeal was made against an Order confirming a duty demand, penalty imposition, and interest demand by the Commissioner Central Excise & Customs. The appellant, owning multiple manufacturing units, received duty paid inputs for manufacturing excisable goods and cleared some inputs to other units. The Department viewed this as transfers to sister units or inter-division transfers for further use, demanding a differential duty amount along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal analyzed the situation, noting that if inputs were cleared to a third party, the appellant would have only reversed the credit availed. It clarified that this was not captive consumption but a transfer of inputs between units. The Tribunal cited precedents to support the appellant's position that there was no justification for paying or reversing more in the case of inter-unit transfers than for third-party clearances. It emphasized that the appellant was justified in reversing the credit of duty originally taken, as shown in the invoice. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.This judgment involved issues related to duty demand, penalty imposition, and interest demand based on the transfer of inputs between manufacturing units. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant's actions were not captive consumption but transfers between units, warranting only the reversal of credit originally taken. The Tribunal's decision was supported by precedents, emphasizing that there was no justification for additional payments or reversals in the case of inter-unit transfers compared to third-party clearances. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the interpretation of rules regarding such transfers, ultimately allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the appellant.