2013 (10) TMI 356 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - export of raw bauxite/low grade bauxite, which attract nil rate of duty. - credit availed on Input services Waiver of Pre-deposit - Held that - The raw bauxite is first brought to their factory premises and from their same was exported by filing proper documents with the department - On a specific query, as to what is the evidence with the Revenue to indicate that raw bauxite is directly exported from the mine and not from the factory premises, learned A.R. could not bring out any documentary evidence - It is observed that once the proper export documents are filed by the appellant with the department and the relevant exports have also been reflected in their periodical returns filed with the department, prima facie, it cannot be considered a case of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade Central Excise duty - the appellant has made out a prima facie case on limitation in their favour Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Cenvat credit on input services for export of raw bauxite
- Time-barred demand for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09

Analysis:
The appellant filed a stay petition against Order-in-Appeal No. 72/2013, concerning the issue of taking cenvat credit on input services for exporting raw bauxite. The appellant argued that they are entitled to the credit as they follow proper export procedures and documentations for raw bauxite cleared for export or used in manufacturing excisable goods. The demand raised for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 was claimed to be time-barred by the appellant's advocate.

The Revenue contended that raw bauxite is directly exported from the mines by the appellant and never brought to the factory premises. However, during the hearing, the Revenue failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting their claim that raw bauxite is directly exported from the mines. The appellant, on the other hand, demonstrated that they bring raw bauxite to their factory premises before exporting it, supported by proper export documents and accurate periodical returns filed with the department.

Considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal found that the appellant had made a prima facie case in their favor regarding the limitation issue. It was observed that the appellant's compliance with export procedures and accurate reporting in their returns indicated no intention to evade Central Excise duty. Consequently, a stay was granted on the recovery of confirmed dues until the appeal is disposed of, based on the appellant's prima facie case in their favor.