9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (6) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Challenge to demand of duty on the ground of limitation. 2. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on imported inputs. 3. Requirement of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. Issue 1: The challenge to the demand of duty based on limitation was examined by the tribunal. The Commissioner demanded duty and imposed penalties on the appellants for a total amount of over Rs. 1.62 crores. The demand was contested primarily on the grounds of limitation. The appellants argued that the facts relevant to the present demand were already known to the department due to a previous show-cause notice. The tribunal noted that fraud and suppression based on a given set of facts for a specific period may not equate to the same offenses for another period. The tribunal found that the facts relevant to the present demand were distinct from those of the earlier case, and thus, the challenge on the ground of limitation was not sustainable. The Supreme Court's judgment cited by the appellants was deemed inapplicable to the current case. Issue 2: The tribunal considered the admissibility of CENVAT credit on imported inputs. The demand of duty was largely related to scrap imported and cleared under 69 Bills of Entry, with the department alleging non-receipt of the material in the factory. The appellants claimed that end-use certificates were issued for 31 Bills of Entry, supporting their entitlement to CENVAT credit. However, for the remaining 38 Bills of Entry, the appellants lacked end-use certificates. The tribunal required a 50% pre-deposit of the CENVAT credit disallowed to the appellants, with a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the remaining duty and penalties upon compliance. Issue 3: The tribunal directed the company to pre-deposit Rs. 80,00,000 within four weeks and report compliance by a specified date. The appellants did not cite financial hardships in their plea. The decision emphasized the importance of compliance with the pre-deposit requirement for further actions regarding the duty and penalties imposed on the appellants.
|
