2018 (8) TMI 946 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal partly allowed, penalty set aside, duty upheld. Tribunal deems Rule 25 penalty unjustified.

The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the order to only set aside the penalty while upholding the demand for duty and interest based on the facts ... CTC machines - whether manufactured goods or only traded item - Held that:- On perusal of the invoices, there is no material found, supporting the contention put forward by the appellant that these are bought-out items and not manufactured by the appellant in their factory - also, after such a long lapse of time, it will be futile exercise to remand the matter to examine whether the appellant during the disputed period of 1.5.2009 to 26.2.2010 had engaged in manufacture of the goods. It is also to be remembered that for the period prior and after, the appellant have availed the exemption as per the notification contending that they are manufacturing the impugned goods. We therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the demand. Demand of duty confirmed - However, penalty imposed under Rule 25 is unwarranted and is set aside. Appeal allowed in part. Issues:1. Availing of CENVAT credit on inputs and exemption on Tea Processing Machinery2. Demand of duty, interest, and penalties for availing exemption during an interim period without notification3. Appeal against the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002Analysis:1. The appellants, registered for manufacturing Tea Processing Machinery, availed CENVAT credit on inputs and exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. An issue arose when, for a period from 1.5.2009 to 26.2.2010, there was no exemption available for the machinery. Despite this, the appellants continued to clear goods under the exemption, leading to a show cause notice for demanding duty, interest, and penalties. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, prompting the appeal.2. The appellant's counsel argued that the exemption on the goods was periodically extended by the Government, and they were unaware of the lack of exemption during the disputed period. The Government later restored the exemption through Notification 12/2010-CE. The appellant claimed they did not manufacture the goods during the contested period but traded them after purchasing from another entity. However, the authorities rejected this argument. The Adjudicating Authority noted that invoices did not support the claim of the goods being bought-out items, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's plea.3. The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented. They found that the invoices indicated the goods were complete as per the appellant's specifications, contradicting the claim of being bought-out items. Moreover, due to the substantial time elapsed, remanding the matter for further examination was deemed unnecessary. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed under Rule 25 was unjustified and set it aside. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the order to only set aside the penalty while upholding the demand for duty and interest based on the facts presented.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues involved comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.