2017 (10) TMI 1110 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal decision: Excise duty demand set aside, penalties upheld. CEO penalty overturned due to lack of evidence.

The Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the demand for Central Excise duty of Rs. 2.98 crore, along with penalties, while ... CENVAT credit - returned goods - Rule 16 of the CER, 2002 - Held that: - Cenvat credit can be availed only when the goods are accompanied by documents evidencing the details of the goods, the duty involved as well as mode of transport with registration number of vehicles. Such details are to be entered in invoice which are stipulated under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. After these particulars are found to be untrue, it gives rise to irrevocable presumption about the genuineness of goods transported and the documents covered by it. The goods cannot be considered as received by M/s. BEPL in the light of evidence regarding vehicle numbers / GRs. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that Shri Arvind K Doshi, CEO of M/s. JRPL was instrumental in such activity. Hence, there is no justification for imposing penalty on Shri Doshi, and hence set aside. Appeal allowed in part. Issues:Dispute regarding Central Excise duty demand on returned goods and subsequent reprocessing by the manufacturer. Disallowance of Cenvat credit on unverified quantity of returned goods. Imposition of penalties on the manufacturer and CEO of a dealer company.Central Excise Duty Demand on Returned Goods:The case involved M/s. Bhansali Engineering Polymers Ltd. (BEPL) and the dispute over the Central Excise duty demand amounting to Rs. 2.98 crore. The dispute arose from the reprocessing of returned Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) by BEPL. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand citing non-compliance with Trade Notice No. 57/2001 and the absence of a new commodity after reprocessing. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that BEPL had followed the prescribed procedure and the reprocessing constituted manufacture, warranting duty payment at the time of removal. Consequently, the demand of Rs. 2.98 crore was set aside, along with interest and penalties.Disallowed Cenvat Credit on Unverified Quantity:Another issue was the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1.22 crore on a quantity of 436 MT of ABS claimed to be returned by M/s. Bhansali Engineering Polymers Ltd. (BEPL). The adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the documentation accompanying the returned goods, leading to the disallowance. The Appellate Tribunal concurred, noting that the evidence, including mismatched vehicle numbers in GRs, indicated the goods were not received by BEPL. Thus, the disallowance of Cenvat credit, along with interest and penalties, was upheld.Penalties Imposed on CEO of Dealer Company:Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 1.22 crore was imposed on the CEO of M/s. Jagruti Resins Pvt. Ltd. for his alleged involvement in the unverified returns. The CEO contested the penalty, claiming he was only an employee and not directly responsible. The Appellate Tribunal, based on the lack of evidence implicating the CEO and the unreceived goods, set aside the penalty on the CEO. The Tribunal upheld the penalties and disallowances related to the unverified returns but set aside the penalty on the CEO.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the demand for Central Excise duty, along with penalties, while upholding the disallowance of Cenvat credit and penalties related to unverified returns. The penalty imposed on the CEO of the dealer company was set aside due to insufficient evidence of his involvement.