2013 (6) TMI 213 - AT - Central Excise

Non-receipt of the inputs - comparison of inputs figures from the bank statement and figures stated in the statement dated 24.03.2005 recorded from Shri Surendra Pilai - whether mere paper credit was enjoyed by appellant as cenvat credit - Held that - Summary adjudication in respect of ingredients of inputs without any break-up thereof to examine status of each ingredient thereof in each of the five years. An abrupt conclusion was drawn by Adjudicating Authority by a summary order thorough analysis of the composition of different ingredient of inputs of each year. The ingredient contributed to the allegation of difference of stock of inputs of 408.283 Mts. is necessary to be brought to record. When such situation comes to the face of order is possible to draw rational conclusion. Therefore matter should go back to Adjudicating authority to re examine it.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in input figures from bank statement and recorded statement.
2. Allegation of enjoying cenvat credit through paper credit.
3. Lack of detailed composition and reconciliation of inputs.
4. Summary adjudication without thorough analysis.

Analysis:
1. The main controversy revolved around the discrepancy between the input figures from the bank statement and the figures recorded in a statement dated 24.03.2005. The question was whether this discrepancy indicated non-receipt of inputs by the appellant to the extent of 408.283 MTs and whether the appellant merely enjoyed paper credit as cenvat credit.

2. The Learned Authority based its findings on comparing the figures from the stock statement given to the bank on 1.3.2000 with the figures stated in the recorded statement from Shri Surendra Pilai on 01.03.2005. The appellant provided a reconciliation of the input figures with the books of accounts to demonstrate that the inputs were indeed received, submitting a paper book to explain the cash position.

3. The Adjudication Order lacked a detailed breakdown of the composition of inputs from 2000-01 to 2004-05. It was noted that the adjudicating authority mechanically adopted the statement given by Shri Surendra Pilai without thoroughly examining the appellant's books of accounts for the five years in question. The order did not provide a year-to-year basis analysis of the alleged goods, which was deemed necessary for a reasoned and speaking order.

4. Another issue highlighted was the summary adjudication without a proper breakdown of the ingredients of inputs each year. The order failed to exhibit the breakup of inputs as on 01.03.2000 and did not analyze the status of each ingredient over the five years. The lack of detailed composition and reconciliation led to the conclusion that the matter should be remanded to the Learned Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision to ensure justice and a fair exercise in examining the dispute.

In conclusion, the adjudicating order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a detailed examination of the inputs' composition, year-wise reconciliation, and a thorough analysis to serve the interest of justice. The appellant was granted the opportunity to argue the matter on both factual and legal grounds before the Learned Adjudicating Authority.