2011 (9) TMI 650 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - Assessee manufacturing yarn availing benefit of Notification 6/2003 - Held -BED can be used to discharge of SED and AED (T&TA). Demand of duty of removal of deteriorated input - held that - the appellant had not produced any evidence as regards deteriorated condition of inputs as claimed by him. - the orders of lower authorities confirming demand of duty on the appellant for reversal of amount of CENVAT Credit taken by the appellant on the inputs removed as such, are correct and do not suffer from any infirmity.

Summary

Issues:
- Utilization of CENVAT Credit for discharge of SED & AED
- Demand of duty on under-valuation of goods
- Removal of deteriorated inputs from factory premises

Utilization of CENVAT Credit for discharge of SED & AED:
The appellant, a manufacturer of multifold yarn, utilized CENVAT Credit for discharging duty liability by availing the benefit of Notification No.6/2000-CE. The dispute arose when the appellant paid Central Excise duty through RG23C Part II for clearances of finished goods/inputs and under-valued the goods, resulting in short payment of duty. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, and found that there was no prohibition on utilizing BED for discharging SED & AED. Relying on precedents and the absence of evidence of deterioration, the Tribunal set aside the demand of duty amounting to Rs.93,484.

Demand of duty on under-valuation of goods:
Regarding the demand of duty amounting to Rs.1,24,564 for under-valuation of goods, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of transaction value for discharging duty liability. The lower authorities failed to challenge the transaction value declared on the invoices for the clearance of finished goods. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that the transaction value at the time of clearance should be considered for duty payment. Consequently, the demand based on under-valuation was set aside.

Removal of deteriorated inputs from factory premises:
The appellant claimed that inputs, deteriorated over 5 years, could not be sold at the original price and thus should not be considered as removal from the factory. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of evidence supporting the deterioration claim. Referring to Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, the Tribunal upheld the demand for reversal of CENVAT Credit on inputs removed as such. The penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside due to the partial set aside of the demand. The appellant was directed to pay interest on the differential amount of the confirmed demand. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal accordingly.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the issues of CENVAT Credit utilization, duty demand on under-valuation, and removal of deteriorated inputs. It highlighted the significance of transaction value for duty payment, absence of evidence for deterioration, and adherence to CENVAT Credit rules. The Tribunal set aside certain demands, upheld others, and annulled the penalty while ordering interest payment.