2010 (12) TMI 175 - AT - Central Excise

Reverse of Cenvat credit - Closing stock of inputs and inputs contained in finished goods lying in stock, after opting to full exemption in terms of Notification No.8/2003-CE dt. 1.3.03 w.e.f. 1.4.05 - The difference arises as a result of assessees valuing the closing stock at Rs. 13,83,437/-, while the department has arrived at the value of Rs. 17,47,361 - The assessees make submissions both on merit and time-bar - Department has made out the case on the basis of assessees profit and loss account which clearly shows inclusion of sales tax and freight etc - The submission that profit and loss account is a public document and if demand is made on that basis, no suppression can be alleged, and also that the request for destruction of rejected branded goods containing inputs on which the demand has been made, is still pending with the department - Appeal is allowed by remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of CENVAT credit on closing stock of inputs and finished goods.
2. Correct valuation of closing stock for reversal of CENVAT credit.
3. Bar on demand by limitation.
4. Detailed findings by lower appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The case revolves around the dispute concerning the reversal of CENVAT credit on the closing stock of inputs and finished goods by the assessees. The department contends that the correct credit amount was not reversed, leading to a variance in the amounts stated by the assessees and the revenue department. The disagreement arises from the valuation of the closing stock, with the assessees valuing it at Rs. 13,83,437/-, while the revenue department values it at Rs. 17,47,361/-.

2. Upon hearing both parties, the assessees raised two primary submissions. Firstly, they argued that certain elements such as freight and sales tax, which should not be included in the assessable value, were added, resulting in an inflated value. Secondly, they claimed that the demand is time-barred as there was no intention to evade duty, and the department based its case on the profit and loss account, which includes sales tax and freight. The lower appellate authority failed to provide detailed findings on these submissions.

3. The Tribunal observed that the lower appellate authority did not adequately address all the submissions raised by the assessees, including the non-applicability of the extended limitation period, the use of the profit and loss account as the basis for the demand, and the pending request for the destruction of rejected goods. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and remitted the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, instructing a detailed examination of all issues raised by the assessees and granting them a fair opportunity to present their defense.

4. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by remand, emphasizing the importance of a thorough and detailed examination of all aspects of the case by the lower appellate authority to ensure a just and fair decision.