Unauthorized removal of CENVAT inputs attracts confiscation, but penalties must follow the correct rule and verified facts.

Unauthorized removal of CENVAT-credit availed inputs from the factory to an outside godown without required permission, proper documents or reversal of credit attracted confiscation under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; the redemption fine was found excessive and reduced. On the main appellant's credit, interest and penalty exposure, the Tribunal required verification of whether the inputs were in fact used in manufacture or cleared on payment of duty, and indicated that penalty would not arise if such factual use was established, though interest could still be payable for the unauthorized removal period. Penalties on the other appellants were set aside because they had been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules rather than the correct penal framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether inputs removed from the factory and stored in an outside godown without necessary permission and without reversal of CENVAT credit were liable to confiscation and redemption fine. (ii) Whether denial of CENVAT credit, interest and penalty on the main appellant required verification of the subsequent use or clearance of the inputs. (iii) Whether penalties imposed on the other appellants under Rule 26 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether inputs removed from the factory and stored in an outside godown without necessary permission and without reversal of CENVAT credit were liable to confiscation and redemption fine.

Analysis: The inputs were admittedly removed from the factory without the required permission under Rule 8 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. No proper movement documents were prepared, no records were maintained at the outside godown, and the undertaking to keep records and reverse credit was not complied with. In such circumstances, the removal of inputs as such attracted the statutory consequence of confiscation under Rule 15(1). However, the redemption fine imposed was found to be disproportionate to the credit involved.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of CENVAT credit, interest and penalty on the main appellant required verification of the subsequent use or clearance of the inputs.

Analysis: The main appellant claimed that the released inputs were used in the manufacture of finished goods, but no documentary proof was produced before the Tribunal. The factual position regarding actual use of the inputs or clearance on payment of duty therefore required verification by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal indicated that if the inputs had been used in manufacture or cleared on duty payment, penalty under Section 11AC would not arise, though interest could still be payable for the period of unauthorized removal.

Conclusion: The matter of credit, interest and penalty on this aspect was remitted for verification.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties imposed on the other appellants under Rule 26 were sustainable.

Analysis: The penalties on the other appellants were imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal held that for alleged violations relating to CENVAT Credit Rules, penalties could be imposed only under the relevant penal provisions applicable to those rules, and not under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the manner adopted by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The penalties on the other appellants were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation was sustained, the redemption fine was substantially reduced, the issue of credit and consequential penalty on the main appellant was sent back for factual verification, and the penalties on the other appellants were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Unauthorized removal of CENVAT-paid inputs without the required permission and without reversal of credit justifies confiscation under the penal framework of the CENVAT Credit Rules, while consequential penalties must be imposed strictly under the correct statutory provision and only after the relevant factual use of inputs is verified.

---