2009 (11) TMI 755 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants waiver & stay of recovery for duty & penalties in Cenvat credit case

AMBADAS NAGARGOJE Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & ST., AURANGABAD

The Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for duty and penalties, including those imposed on the director of the company, in a ... - Issues:1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the Appellant regarding duty and penalty.2. Denial of Cenvat credit on inputs leading to demand for duty.3. Contention regarding show-cause notice and evidence presented by the Revenue.4. Prima facie case for the Appellant based on evidence and submissions.5. Confirmation of demand of duty against the Appellant by the Commissioner.6. Consideration of various pieces of evidence by the Commissioner.7. Finding on the inadmissible credit taken by the Appellant.8. Decision on waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.Analysis:1. The Appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning a duty amount and penalty. An initial payment towards the duty demand was made. The demand arose from the denial of Cenvat credit on iron and steel scrap inputs during a specific period.2. The Revenue contended that the Appellant was not entitled to the Cenvat credit as the scrap was allegedly not received from the supplying company. The Appellant challenged this based on pleadings and documents from the show-cause notice. The Revenue linked this case with another notice issued to scrap dealers, including the supplying company, proposing penalties for issuing non-CENVATable invoices.3. The Tribunal found a prima facie case for the Appellant. Evidence from sales tax authorities indicated discrepancies in scrap transportation during the disputed period. The Commissioner's order was questioned based on the lack of relevance of certain evidence to the period in question.4. Various pieces of evidence were considered by the Commissioner to confirm the duty demand, including a panchanama showing negligible scrap stock at the supplier's premises. The Appellant argued against the findings based on pre-dispute stock verification and unsuitable transport vehicles mentioned in invoices.5. The Commissioner's decision to confirm the duty demand against the Appellant was based on multiple factors, including inadmissible credits taken on parallel invoices during the disputed period.6. The Appellant's counsel presented arguments against the Commissioner's findings, highlighting discrepancies in the evidence and the payment made under protest for credits attributed to certain invoices.7. Ultimately, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the duty and penalties, including those imposed on the director of the company.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments, evidence, and decisions involved in the case.