2013 (11) TMI 586 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules Central Excise duty cannot apply to goods made by another entity. Penalty upheld for register violation.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in the case, finding that Central Excise duty cannot be imposed on goods manufactured by a different entity. ... Duty Liability - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The Central Excise duty is leviable on the goods manufactured by a manufacturer and can be confirmed only against the person who actually manufactured the goods - as per the appellant, they have produced the invoices showing receipt of the said goods but without going into the factual aspect, Central Excise duty cannot be confirmed against recipient of the goods manufactured by other manufacturer - the appellant have made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty. Penalty under Rule 27 - M/s Prakash Switchgear was not having RG-I register in their factory and evidence for the same could not be produced by them, for which penalty under Rule 27, which provides for maximum penalty of Rs. Five thousand imposable - the appellant directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 – upon such Submission rest of the dues to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted. Issues:1. Non-availability of RG-I register in the factory of M/s Prakash Switchgear.2. Goods found in the residence of M/s Prakash Switchgear and duty imposition.3. Duty confirmation against M/s Arkaylite Electricals for not producing duty paying documents.4. Penalty imposition on Mr. R.K. Gupta, an employee of M/s Prakash Switchgear.5. Abatement of duty and penalty confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals).6. Central Excise duty liability on goods manufactured by another manufacturer.7. Penalty imposition on M/s Prakash Switchgear for not having RG-I register.Analysis:1. The case involved the non-availability of the RG-I register in the factory of M/s Prakash Switchgear, leading to the confirmation of duty and penalty imposition. The goods found in the residence were linked to a family member who is a trader, but the revenue did not accept the explanation, resulting in duty imposition and penalty.2. M/s Arkaylite Electricals, a trading unit, faced duty confirmation for not producing duty paying documents for goods found in their godown. Additionally, a penalty was imposed on Mr. R.K. Gupta, an employee of M/s Prakash Switchgear, in connection with the case.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter, allowing a 35% abatement in duty calculation. However, after the abatement, duty confirmation and penalty imposition were upheld against the appellants.4. The Tribunal observed that Central Excise duty is leviable on goods manufactured by a specific entity and cannot be confirmed against a recipient of goods manufactured by another party. Despite invoices showing receipt of goods, the duty could not be imposed on M/s Prakash Switchgear for goods manufactured by a different entity.5. While the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty for the appellants due to the manufacturing discrepancy, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was directed to be deposited by M/s Prakash Switchgear for not having the RG-I register. The waiver was subject to this deposit, and recovery was stayed pending appeal disposal.