2015 (10) TMI 1347 - AT - Central Excise

Adjudication denial overturned, penalty set aside due to lack of evidence, CESTAT ruling in favor.

M/s Cardkem Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat-II

The Adjudicating authority denied CENVAT Credit and imposed a penalty, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's credit availed during Dec ... Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Adjudicating authority denied the CENVAT Credit of ₹ 34,714.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant availed the credit during the period from December 2004 to March 2005 and thereafter, fire occurred in the factory and therefore, the documents were destroyed in the fire. The Central Excise Audit party during the audit in the year 2007-08, directed them to produce the documents. The appellant failed to produce the documents destroyed in fire. A show cause notice dt.15.7.2009 was issued, proposing to deny CENVAT Credit along with interest and penalty. Demand is barred by limitation. Both the authorities below have not given any specific finding that the Appellant had suppressed the fact with intent to evade payment of duty. On the contrary, it is evident that the appellant has availed the credit in December 2004 to March 2006 and filed monthly return timely to the Central Excise Department. There is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and therefore, the imposition of penalty is unwarranted. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Denial of CENVAT Credit by Adjudicating authority2. Destruction of documents in fire3. Barred by limitation4. Suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty5. Imposition of penaltyDenial of CENVAT Credit by Adjudicating authority:The Adjudicating authority denied the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 34,714.00 along with interest and imposed a penalty of an equal amount, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant availed the credit during the period from December 2004 to March 2005. The Central Excise Audit party directed them to produce the documents destroyed in a fire that occurred in the factory. A show cause notice was issued proposing to deny CENVAT Credit along with interest and penalty. The appellant contested the demand on merit as well as on limitation.Destruction of documents in fire:The fire that occurred in the factory led to the destruction of the documents relevant to the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant. The authorities did not dispute the occurrence of the fire during the said period. However, the destruction of these documents was not recorded in the Panchnama. This lack of documentation raised questions regarding the authenticity of the claim and the subsequent denial of credit.Barred by limitation:The key issue raised was whether the demand for denial of CENVAT Credit was barred by limitation. Both the authorities did not provide any specific finding that the appellant had suppressed facts with the intent to evade payment of duty. It was noted that the appellant had availed the credit in a timely manner and filed monthly returns to the Central Excise Department. As there was no evidence of suppression of facts to evade duty payment, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, leading to the conclusion that the imposition of penalty was unwarranted.Suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty:The judgment highlighted the absence of any specific findings by the authorities that the appellant had suppressed facts with the intent to evade payment of duty. On the contrary, the appellant had complied with the necessary procedures by availing the credit and submitting timely returns. The lack of evidence supporting the claim of suppression indicated that the imposition of penalty was unjustified.Imposition of penalty:In light of the findings related to the lack of suppression of facts and the absence of evidence supporting the imposition of penalty, the impugned orders denying CENVAT Credit and imposing a penalty were set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, indicating a favorable outcome for the appellant in this case.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD illustrates the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the ultimate decision reached by the tribunal.