2013 (6) TMI 5 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit availed without cover of any proper document/challan showing short receipts issued by the buyers - waiver of pre-deposit of duty interest and penalty - Held that - As the applicant is availing credit of duty paid on the cement which was received short by their customers the applicant is to show that their customers have received less quantity of cement than shown in the invoice. The applicant has not produced such documents before the adjudicating authority nor before the Commissioner (Appeals) it is not a case for total waiver of duty. Applicant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10, 00, 000/- within eight weeks on deposit of which the pre-deposit of the remaining duty interest and penalty is waived and recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
- Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty
- Denial of credit of duty paid on final product
- Availing credit on duty paid for cement received back
- Lack of proper documents/challans showing short receipts
- Failure to produce necessary records during verification
- Appeal for dismissal due to lack of document production
- Direction to deposit a specified amount within a timeframe

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs.37,48,092/-, where the demand was confirmed due to the denial of credit of duty paid on the final product. The applicant cleared cement in bulkers to buyers, and upon receiving some consignments back due to short receipts, availed credit on the duty paid. However, the demand was upheld as the applicant lacked proper documents/challans showing the short receipts issued by buyers. The applicant contended that they possessed records demonstrating the short supply of cement to buyers, including challans and debit entries, but failed to produce them before the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) in a timely manner, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Revenue argued that the applicant failed to produce necessary records during verification by the range Superintendent of CE, which hindered the verification process. The Superintendent's communication highlighted the applicant's non-compliance with document submission directives. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not substantiate the claim of customers receiving less cement than invoiced before the adjudicating authority or Commissioner (Appeals), thereby concluding that total waiver of duty was not warranted. However, considering the case's circumstances, the applicant was directed to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- within eight weeks. Upon this deposit, the pre-deposit of the remaining duty, interest, and penalty was waived, with recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency, and compliance was required by a specified date for the appeal to proceed.

In summary, the judgment addressed the applicant's failure to provide adequate documentation supporting the availed credit on duty paid for cement received back, leading to the directive to deposit a specified amount within a timeframe to continue the appeal process.