Section 11D Central Excise Act inapplicable when predeposit made and no duty retained by appellant

CESTAT Chennai held that Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked against an appellant who made predeposit of Rs.1 crore and later issued supplementary invoices to pass the burden to another party. The tribunal found that since the predeposit remains with the Government and the original demand was set aside on merits, Section 11D applies only when excise duty collected is not deposited with Government. The appellant retained no collected amounts, making Section 11D inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay Central Excise duty on finished goods and cenvat credit on capital goods, inputs, and work-in-progress upon sale of the Industrial Chain Division.
2. Alleged misuse of predeposit amount under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Validity of supplementary invoices issued by the appellant.
4. Applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Central Excise Duty:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing steel products, sold their Industrial Chain Division to M/s. Renold Chain India Pvt. Ltd. on 29.09.2008. The Department issued a show cause notice on 17.09.2009 demanding Central Excise duty on finished goods in stock and cenvat credit on capital goods, inputs, and work-in-progress, considering these as removed to M/s. Renold. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,47,72,428/- along with interest and penalty.

2. Alleged Misuse of Predeposit:
After the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a predeposit of Rs. 1 crore, the appellant issued supplementary invoices to M/s. Renold, which seemed to facilitate M/s. Renold in taking cenvat credit of the predeposit amount. The Department alleged that this amounted to a double use of the Rs. 1 crore predeposit, contravening Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. Validity of Supplementary Invoices:
The appellant issued supplementary invoices showing a nominal product value and excise duty, which the Department argued were not valid documents for taking cenvat credit under Rule 9 (1) (b) of CCR 2004. The Department contended that these invoices were issued without actual delivery of goods, solely to pass on the predeposit burden.

4. Applicability of Section 11D:
The Department invoked Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, alleging that the appellant collected an amount representing excise duty and did not deposit it with the Government. However, the appellant argued that the predeposit was already with the Government and not retained by them. The Tribunal noted that the predeposit is flexible and meant to safeguard revenue during appeals. Since the demand was set aside in the final order, the appellant was eligible for a refund of the predeposit, which they did not claim.

5. Imposition of Penalty:
The Department imposed a penalty under Rule 26 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, alleging that the appellant facilitated M/s. Renold in availing ineligible credit. The appellant argued that penalties under this rule could only be imposed on natural persons, not corporate entities. The Tribunal observed that no proceedings were initiated against M/s. Renold for ineligible credit and that the demand raised was under Section 11D, not Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the amount of Rs. 1 crore was still with the Government and that the appellant had not misused the predeposit. The confirmation of demand and penalty under Section 11D and Rule 26 (2) could not be sustained since the predeposit was not retained by the appellant and no ineligible credit was availed by M/s. Renold. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 27.08.2024)

---