Tribunal waives pre-deposit for duty & penalty due to CENVAT credit denial under Target Plus Scheme.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, dispensing with the pre-deposit condition of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 33,76,043/- due to the denial of CENVAT credit under the Target Plus Scheme. The denial was found to be not appropriate as any violation related to the Customs Act and not grounds for denying CENVAT credit. The Tribunal emphasized that doubts regarding non-availment of drawback should be verified with factual evidence, and in the absence of clear allegations or findings, such grounds were not valid for the Revenue.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit under the Target Plus Scheme.
2. Violation of conditions of Notification No. 32/2005-Cus.
3. Installation of imported capital goods within the specified period.
4. Allegation of non-availment of drawback by the importer.

Analysis:

1. The appellant sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 33,76,043/-, which were confirmed against them due to the denial of CENVAT credit on additional customs duty paid on imported capital goods under the Target Plus Scheme. The denial was based on the alleged violation of conditions of Notification No. 32/2005-Cus., dated 8-4-2005.

2. The Tribunal observed that one of the conditions of the notification required the importer to install the imported capital goods within six months from the date of import or within an extended period granted by the customs authorities. The appellant imported the goods between June 2006 to April 2007, and certificates of installation were provided on 28-9-2008. The lower authorities disallowed the credit citing lack of extension for installation period by the appropriate officer.

3. After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal agreed that any violation was related to the Customs Act and not grounds for denying CENVAT credit under the Excise authorities. The absence of any action by the Commissioner alleging violation further supported the view that denial of credit was not appropriate. The issuance of installation certificates within the extended period implied deemed extension, even without explicit approval.

4. The Tribunal addressed the allegation of non-availment of drawback by the importer, which was not part of the Show Cause Notice. Despite doubts expressed by authorities, no categorical finding was made regarding drawback availing. The Tribunal emphasized that such doubts should be verified as factual evidence, and in the absence of clear allegations or findings, the ground was not valid for the Revenue.

5. Considering the merits of the case and the arguments presented, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. They dispensed with the pre-deposit condition of duty and penalty, allowing the Stay Petition unconditionally. The decision was made based on the lack of explicit violations and the prima facie view supporting the appellant's position on the matter.

---