2010 (12) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Tax Evasion Judgment: Upheld Penalties for Undervaluation, CENVAT Credit Misuse

The judgment dismissed the adjournment request made for medical reasons without a supporting medical certificate. It upheld the demand of duty, interest, ... Cenvat Credit - wrong availment - wrong availment of CENVAT credit on polypropylene (PP) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) granules as well as on capital goods - Non-receipt of inputs in LDPE granules - Held that: - In the present appeal of the company, I have not found any rebuttal of the admissions made before the lower appellate authority. In this scenario, the demand of duty to the extent affirmed by the lower appellate authority has only to be upheld. It is ordered accordingly. Actual confiscation is not necessary for a penalty on the party. Liability of the goods for confiscation is enough. This was correctly found by the lower authorities. The Rules then in existence provided that the party, who rendered such goods liable to confiscation, be penalised. In this view of the matter, I have no reason to interfere with the penalties imposed on the assessee. The assessees appeal stands dismissed. Issues:1. Adjournment request due to medical reasons without supporting medical certificate.2. Appeal against demand of duty, interest, and penalties for unit No.1 and unit No.2.3. Adjudication of show-cause notice for wrong availment of CENVAT credit and undervaluation of goods.4. Reduction of penalty for unit No.2 and confistication of goods.5. Challenge against demand of duty, penalties, and reduction of penalty for unit No.2.Issue 1: Adjournment Request without Medical CertificateThe judgment addresses the issue of an adjournment request made by the consultant of the assessee due to medical reasons without providing a medical certificate. The consultant sought adjournment citing chest congestion, severe cold, and viral infection. The Bench rejected the plea for adjournment as it lacked bona fides and was not supported by a medical certificate. The judgment emphasizes the statutory limit to adjournments and the importance of parties being present for hearings.Issue 2: Appeal against Demand of Duty, Interest, and PenaltiesThe appeals involved challenges against the demand of duty, interest, and penalties for unit No.1 and unit No.2. The appellate authority upheld the demand of duty on unit No.1 for wrong availment of CENVAT credit and undervaluation of goods. The penalties imposed on unit No.1 were also affirmed. The Revenue's appeal focused on the reduction of penalties for unit No.2 by the appellate Commissioner. The judgment details the specific amounts in question and the grievances raised by both parties in their respective appeals.Issue 3: Adjudication of Show-Cause NoticeThe judgment discusses the adjudication of a show-cause notice that demanded duty from unit No.1 for wrong availment of CENVAT credit and undervaluation of goods. The original authority imposed penalties and ordered recovery of interest on the duty amounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty and penalties for unit No.1. The judgment highlights the findings of the lower authorities and the lack of rebuttal in the present appeal against those findings.Issue 4: Reduction of Penalty for Unit No.2 and Confiscation of GoodsRegarding unit No.2, the appellate authority reduced the quantum of penalty imposed. The judgment mentions an addendum issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection of the Revenue's appeal against it. The judgment upholds the penalties imposed on the assessee for unit No.2, emphasizing that liability for confiscation of goods is sufficient for penalties, even without actual confiscation.Issue 5: Challenge against Demand of Duty and Penalties for Unit No.2The judgment concludes by dismissing the appeal by the assessee against the demand of duty and penalties for unit No.2. It highlights the lack of merits in the Revenue's appeal against unit No.2, focusing on the reduction of penalties and the applicability of specific legal provisions. The judgment details the reasons for dismissing both appeals and the reliance on case law in the decision-making process.This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments, findings, and decisions made by the Tribunal.