2015 (11) TMI 1334 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal favors appellants, rules against application of specific rules. Importance of proving violations emphasized.

M/s. Ganpati Rollings Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Bombay Metal Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi

M/s. Ganpati Rollings Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Bombay Metal Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - TMI Issues:1. Confiscation of goods for excess raw material and finished goods.2. Applicability of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.3. Applicability of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.Issue 1: Confiscation of Goods for Excess Raw Material and Finished Goods:The appellants were job workers engaged in converting copper ingots into copper wire rods. During a search, excess copper ingots and wire rods were found, leading to allegations of non-recording in statutory records and subsequent confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties. Show cause notices were issued, and the appellants challenged the order, arguing that the confiscation was not sustainable. The dispute revolved around the excess raw material and finished goods found during the investigation.Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:The appellant's counsel contended that Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which deals with confiscation and penalties for wrongly utilizing CENVAT credit, was not applicable as the appellants had not taken any such credit wrongly or in contravention of rules. The Tribunal concurred, holding that since no CENVAT credit on inputs was taken, Rule 15 did not apply, and the goods were not liable for confiscation under this rule.Issue 3: Applicability of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:The Revenue argued that Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which covers confiscation and penalties for various violations, applied due to the excess goods not being recorded in statutory records. However, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority did not establish a violation of section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, a prerequisite for invoking Rule 25. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that Rule 25 was not applicable in this case. Consequently, the confiscation of goods was set aside, and no redemption fine or penalty was imposed on the appellants.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the appellants due to the inapplicability of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 to the facts of the case. The judgment emphasized the necessity of establishing violations before invoking specific rules for confiscation and penalties, ultimately providing consequential relief to the appellants.