2013 (11) TMI 1294 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of inputs as such Failure to reverse the cenvat credit under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Perusal of RG-23 Part-I Register, RG-I Register and the excise invoices, there was no mention of removal of input-waste, after carrying out these processes, rather it has been uniformly shown as waste and scrap - invariably, in all these invoices, the goods were declared as waste and scrap not as input waste and scrap - in the absence of sufficient evidences, it is not possible to appreciate, how much waste and scrap generated from processing of inputs, were cleared from the factory and the waste and scrap on which CENVAT Credit availed, were cleared as such Assessee is directed to submit Rupees fifty lakhs as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of predeposit of CENVAT Credit and penalty; applicability of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; generation and clearance of waste and scrap; maintenance of records; financial hardship; direction for deposit.

Analysis:
The case involved applications seeking waiver of predeposit of CENVAT Credit and penalties imposed under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Revenue alleged that the Applicant cleared inputs as such without reversing the CENVAT Credit availed, leading to a demand notice. The Applicant contended that the inputs underwent processes generating waste, which was cleared as processed waste, not as inputs. However, it was admitted that proper records were not maintained, causing a lack of evidence on the generation and clearance of waste materials during manufacturing processes.

The main issue revolved around the clearance of inputs as such, triggering the requirement to reverse CENVAT Credit under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Applicant claimed that waste generated from processing inputs was cleared as processed waste, not as inputs. Despite the absence of clear evidence supporting this claim in the records presented, the Tribunal acknowledged the need for a detailed examination during the Appeal process. Considering the Applicant's financial hardship and legal principles, a direction was issued to deposit a specified amount within a stipulated timeframe to stay the recovery of the balance dues pending the Appeals.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining proper records to substantiate claims regarding the generation and clearance of waste materials during manufacturing processes. While the Applicant argued that waste was processed and cleared differently from inputs, the lack of detailed documentation hindered the Tribunal's ability to verify these assertions conclusively. In light of the circumstances and legal precedents, a deposit requirement was imposed to balance the interests of the Applicant, the Revenue, and the principles of justice pending the Appeal proceedings.

The decision highlighted the significance of evidence and documentation in supporting claims related to the clearance of inputs and the generation of waste during manufacturing activities. The Tribunal recognized the need for a more thorough examination of the facts and evidence during the Appeal process to determine the appropriate application of rules governing CENVAT Credit and the clearance of waste materials. The direction for a deposit aimed to address the financial concerns of the Applicant while ensuring compliance with legal requirements and principles of justice pending the final resolution of the Appeals.