Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Godrej Consumer Products Ltd vs Pondicherry on 30 April, 2024
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Excise Appeal No.40336 of 2015
(Arising out of Order in Original No. 65/2014 (C) dated 19.11.2014 passed by the
Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry)
M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd.
(Liquid Unit) Appellant
Shed No. A-12, B-2, Mini Industrial Estate
Kalapahar, Guwahati - 781 016.
Vs.
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent
No. 1, Goubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001.
AND Excise Appeal No. 40337 of 2015 (Arising out of Order in Original No. 65/2014 (C) dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry) M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. Appellant Lalungaon, Lokhra, Behind National Public School Guwahati - 781 034.
Vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent No. 1, Goubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001.
APPEARANCE:
Ms. Manasa, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Ambe, DC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order Nos. 40503,40504/2024 Date of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date of Decision: 30.04.2024 Per M. Ajit Kumar, Both these appeals arise out of a common Order in Original No. 65/2014 dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry.2
E/40336 & 40337/2015
2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. E-Mox Device Company, Puducherry (E-Mox), are job worker of M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (GCPL) for the manufacture of Electrical Mosquito Repellent Device (EMD for short) falling under Chapter Sub Heading No. 85167920 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. E-Mox has availed Cenvat credit of inputs including the Refill bottles received from the Appellants and used in the manufacture of the final product i.e., the Combination pack. According to department, M/s.GCPL at Guwahati, instead of adopting the correct value to be determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, with intent to obtain erroneous refund under Notification No.20/2007-CE, had undervalued the goods by adopting valuation under Section 4A and evaded duty. It appeared that the appellant has availed excess CENVAT credit on the invoices issued by M/s.Godrej Consumer Products Limited (GCPL), Kalapahar, Guwahati and M/s.Godrej Consumer Products Limited, Lokhra, Guwahati, which is ineligible. In the above background, Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants of both the units proposing to imposing penalty under Rule 26 (ii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the penalties. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants are now before the Tribunal.
3. We have heard Ms. Manasa, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri M. Ambe, Deputy Commissioner for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted at the outset, that the main Appeal filed by the job worker i.e., 'E-Mox' in Appeal 3 E/40336 & 40337/2015 No. E/40336/2015 against the Impugned Order was allowed on merits by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide Final Order No. 40123/2024 dated 02.02.2024. The Hon'ble Tribunal has held that E-Mox has rightly availed Cenvat Credit and that the denial of credit is not justified. Therefore, the demand for recovery of credit along with interest and penalties has been set aside. The learned Counsel submitted that levy of penalty is consequential to the demand for recovery of credit initiated against E-Mox. Therefore, since the proceeding initiated against E-Mox has been set aside, the consequential penalties levied on the Appellants are also liable to be set aside. She prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
5. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
6. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that in the light of the Hon'ble Tribunal's Final Order No. 40123/2024 dated 02.02.2024 holding that E-Mox has rightly availed CENVAT Credit and that the denial of credit is not justified the imposition of consequential penalty on the Appellants, does not survive and merits to be set aside.
7. In the light of the discussions above the penalty confirmed vide the impugned Order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Pronounced in open court on 30.04.2024)
(M. AJIT KUMAR) (P. DINESHA)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Rex