Tribunal waives balance dues upon Rs.7.00 lakhs deposit, stresses evidence importance in appeal process.

The Tribunal accepted the Applicant's offer to deposit Rs.7.00 lakhs within eight weeks, waiving the balance amount of dues and staying recovery during the appeal's pendency. Failure to make the pre-deposit would result in the dismissal of both appeals. The decision highlighted the significance of evidence in assessing cenvat credit admissibility and emphasized the necessity of complying with pre-deposit obligations for a successful appeal process.

---

---

Issues involved:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of cenvat credit, penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for waiver of pre-deposit of cenvat credit amounting to Rs.71,41,413/- along with penalties imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and personal penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- on the Director of the Applicant Company. The Applicant, engaged in manufacturing TMT Bars and Rods, was accused of wrongly availing cenvat credit on invoices without receiving the principal raw material, MS Ingots, during the period from 01.06.2004 to 31.03.2007. The Department alleged that the goods did not cross the Assam Meghalaya Border as per the Check Post Authorities' evidence. The Applicant denied the allegations, stating there was no evidence that the MS Ingots were not used in the manufacturing process and that all payments were made through cheques without any suppression of facts. An amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs was already deposited during the investigation, and the Applicant offered to deposit an additional Rs.7.00 lakhs.

The Revenue argued that there were sufficient evidences against the Applicant, indicating that the inputs mentioned in the invoices were not received in their factory. The suppliers allegedly did not supply the goods, making the credit availed irregular. The Tribunal analyzed the issue of admissibility of cenvat credit against the invoices received by the Applicant. The Department contended that even though invoices were received, the goods did not reach the factory, implying they were not used in the manufacturing process. The decision hinged on the evaluation of evidence collected by the Department and the Applicant's rebuttal. Considering that the Applicant had already deposited Rs.10.00 lakhs and offered to deposit an additional Rs.7.00 lakhs, the Tribunal accepted the offer. The Applicant was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs.7.00 lakhs within eight weeks, failing which both appeals would be dismissed. Upon deposit, the balance amount of dues would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of evidence in determining the admissibility of cenvat credit and the need for compliance with pre-deposit requirements to proceed with the appeal process effectively.

---