2015 (3) TMI 1095 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Intention to evade payment of duty - Held that - There is no error apparent from the case records so far as application of the extended period is concerned. Therefore, ROMs filed by the applicants to this extent are not sustainable - benefits of Cenvat Credit is admissible to them it is observed that this ground was taken up by the applicants in the Grounds of appeal and no orders were passed by this Bench. There is, thus, a mistake apparent from the face of the records and needs rectification. In these proceedings where exemption is denied to the applicant the Cenvat Credit on inputs/capital goods received during the relevant period is admissible. However, the same is subject to the verification of credit taking documents by the Adjudicating Authority that the conditions specified in the Cenvat Credit Rules are fulfilled. For this verification and quantification of duty liability, the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating authority. The applicants should produce the required duty paying documents to the Adjudicating authority in order to claim the Cenvat Credit during the relevant period. - Rectification done.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of extended period for duty payment
2. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit

Analysis:
1. Application of Extended Period for Duty Payment:
The applicants filed ROM applications challenging Order No. A/11506-11515/2014 dated 21.8.2014, arguing that the extended period should not apply as they did not intend to evade duty payment and had relied on various judgments and evidence during the proceedings. The Bench noted that the extended period was rightly invoked as washing machines were cleared as drying machines without proper declarations or seeking clarification from the Revenue, justifying the application of the extended period. The ROMs filed by the applicants on this ground were deemed unsustainable as no error was found in the application of the extended period.

2. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit:
The applicants contended that even if the benefit of exemption notification was not applicable to them, they should still be eligible for Cenvat Credit. The Bench acknowledged this argument and observed that the issue of Cenvat Credit was not addressed in the previous order dated 21.8.2014. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for verification and quantification of duty liability regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods received during the relevant period. The applicants were instructed to provide the necessary duty paying documents for claiming Cenvat Credit, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to conduct de-novo proceedings, allowing the applicants a personal hearing. The Adjudicating Authority was tasked with quantifying duty liability, as well as determining penalties and interest accordingly. The ROM applications were allowed only to the extent indicated above, addressing the issue of Cenvat Credit admissibility.