2014 (1) TMI 730 - AT - Central Excise

Onus to prove the availment of credit on inputs Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Certain quantity of inputs on which credit has been availed and cleared by reversing credit and the dies are manufactured in the factory and used in the manufacture of final product - Prima facie that applicant had a strong case - The amount already deposited is sufficient for the purpose of hearing of the appeal - Pre-deposit of remaining amount waived till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties.
2. Change of tariff heading in the invoice.
3. Demand based on quantities mentioned in the balance sheet and invoices.
4. Duty demand on raw material used in manufacturing.
5. Onus of proving use of duty paid inputs in manufacturing.

Analysis:

1. The applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties totaling Rs.9,24,540. An amount of Rs.1,55,500 had already been deposited along with interest of Rs.1,16,000. The demand was contested on the grounds of a change in tariff heading in the invoice for availing credit, discrepancies in quantities mentioned in the balance sheet and invoices, and duty demand on raw material used in manufacturing.

2. The applicant provided evidence of clearing inputs along with invoices not considered by the Revenue. Additionally, the applicant purchased raw material for dies used in manufacturing forging products. The Revenue demanded duty as the production of dies was not reflected in the RG-I register. The applicant argued that the dies were not reflected due to a genuine belief that they were not to be cleared, as they were used in the manufacture of final products.

3. The Revenue contended that since the applicant availed credit of duty paid inputs, the onus was on the applicant to prove their use in manufacturing goods cleared after payment of duty. However, the applicant's explanation before the adjudicating authority, supported by evidence of clearing inputs and manufacturing dies for final products, indicated a strong case.

4. The Tribunal found the applicant's explanation satisfactory, noting that a certain quantity of inputs had been cleared after availing credit and that the dies were indeed manufactured and used in the final product's manufacturing process. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the amount already deposited sufficient for the appeal's hearing, waiving the pre-deposit of the remaining duty, interest, and penalties. The stay petitions were allowed, granting relief to the applicant.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the applicant based on the evidence presented, highlighting the importance of substantiating the use of duty paid inputs in manufacturing processes to address Revenue demands effectively.