2013 (11) TMI 1164 - AT - Central Excise

Adjournment Application Pending stay application - Held that - It is not possible for Tribunal to keep the matter pending and to grant adjournment after adjournment Revenue pointed out that there was abuse of CENVAT credit - Prima facie , it appears that such abuse is undeniable at this stage when adjudication finding shows that appellant failed to quantify use of common input in manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods Following Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar Versus Dunlop India Limited And Other 1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court - the appellant is directed to make deposit of Rupees Forty lakhs as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Issues: Adjournment application, abuse of CENVAT credit, quantification of common input usage, compliance with apex court ruling

Adjournment Application:
The judgment addresses the issue of repeated adjournment requests causing delays in the proceedings. The appellant's counsel was directed to provide a breakdown of common inputs usage but sought adjournment instead, leading to a halt in the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that adjournments are not a right but a discretion of the court, citing the apex court's ruling in Salem Advocate's Bar Association. Despite an adjournment application citing the illness of an officer, the Tribunal rejected it, stating that the duty of an advocate is to assist the court and not to obstruct the proceedings. Consequently, the matter was taken up for hearing to prevent further delays.

Abuse of CENVAT Credit:
The judgment highlights the issue of abuse of CENVAT credit by the appellant. The Revenue pointed out the abuse, indicating a failure by the appellant to quantify the use of common input in the manufacturing of dutiable and exempted goods. The Tribunal found prima facie evidence of abuse, as the appellant had not provided a clear breakdown of the common input usage. In line with the apex court's decision in Dunlop India Ltd. and others, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.40,00,000 within four weeks to safeguard the Revenue's interests and ensure compliance with the court's directive by a specified date.

Quantification of Common Input Usage:
The judgment addresses the appellant's failure to quantify the usage of common input in the manufacturing process. Despite being directed to provide a breakdown of common input usage, the appellant's actions were deemed dilatory, causing a delay in the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's failure to quantify the common input usage led to a situation where the abuse of CENVAT credit could not be adequately assessed. As a result, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a substantial deposit to address the issue and comply with the apex court's guidelines.

Compliance with Apex Court Ruling:
The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with apex court rulings in matters related to tax credits and manufacturing processes. By citing the Dunlop India Ltd. case, the Tribunal underscored the need for the appellant to adhere to the directives provided by higher courts to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. The appellant was instructed to make a significant deposit within a specified timeframe to ensure compliance with the apex court's decision and prevent further abuse of CENVAT credit.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, focusing on the adjournment application, abuse of CENVAT credit, quantification of common input usage, and compliance with apex court rulings.

← Previous Next →