2013 (2) TMI 334 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit on slow-moving raw-materials written off their books of accounts - demand of amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken thereon in terms of Rule 3(5B) of the CCR 2004 - Held that - Documentary materials produced by the appellant indicate that the party had categorically stated before the original authority that they had not written off their books of accounts any quantity/value of slow moving stock and that the confusion had arisen on account of a clerical mistake whereby a wrong account head happened to be entered in the inventory account. Apellant s letter dated 28.06.2010 addressed to the Central Excise Range Officer indicates that it was accompanied by certain details of accounts in the form of Journal Voucher, summary of Journal Vouchers etc. & were also available to the original authority but not considered by it. One of the grounds of the appeal is clearly to the effect that the appellant had taken back the amount credited, in the financial year 2009-10. A copy of the relevant document showing reversal of CENVAT credit appears to have been enclosed to the said memorandum of appeal - the appellate Commissioner s order suffers from non-application of mind and hence deserves to be set aside - documentary evidence in support thereof need to be examined by the original authority - in favour of assessee by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant regarding adjudged dues, including denied CENVAT credit for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery
The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the adjudged dues related to denied CENVAT credit. The judge, after reviewing the records and hearing both sides, decided that the appeal needed to be finally disposed of at that stage. The original authority confirmed the demand against the appellant under relevant rules and sections of the Central Excise Act, including interest and penalty. The appellant's case was based on rectifying a clerical mistake in writing off certain raw materials, supported by documents like a certificate and a letter to the Central Excise Range Officer. The judge found that the appellate Commissioner's order lacked proper consideration of the documentary evidence presented by the appellant, leading to a non-application of mind. Consequently, the judge set aside the appellate Commissioner's order and remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh adjudication, allowing the appellant to present evidence and be heard on all relevant issues.

Issue 2: Adjudication of CENVAT credit denial
The case revolved around the denial of CENVAT credit to the appellant for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 due to the alleged writing off of raw materials from their books of accounts. The original authority confirmed the demand, including interest and penalty, under specific rules and sections of the Central Excise Act. The appellant contended that the writing off was a clerical mistake rectified in 2009, supported by documents like a certificate and a letter to the Central Excise Range Officer. The judge found that the documentary evidence presented by the appellant was not properly considered by the authorities, leading to a lack of application of mind in the appellate Commissioner's order. As a result, the judge set aside the order and directed the original authority to conduct a fresh adjudication, giving the appellant a fair opportunity to present evidence and arguments.

Conclusion:
The judgment by Mr. P.G. Chacko of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore addressed the issues of waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant regarding the denied CENVAT credit. The judge found discrepancies in the consideration of the appellant's documentary evidence, leading to a lack of proper application of mind in the appellate Commissioner's order. Consequently, the judge set aside the order and remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh adjudication, ensuring the appellant's right to present evidence and arguments.