2014 (4) TMI 459 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - recovery of CENVAT Credit wrongly taken - demand of interest - show-cause notice seems to have not been issued under appropriate Sections of Central Excise Act. - Held that - prima facie case has been made out by the appellant on the ground that the show-cause notice has been issued under a wrong Section and in the absence of issuance of show-cause notice invoking extended period under Section 11A, the demand could not have been sustained. Even though several other submissions were made, I consider that it is not necessary to go into all those submissions in view of the fact that appellant has made out a prima facie case for waiver on this preliminary ground. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal - Stay granted.

Issues:
1. Excess CENVAT credit taken by the assessee during a specific period.
2. Initiation of proceedings through a show-cause notice for recovery of interest and imposition of penalty.
3. Dispute regarding the appropriate section under which the show-cause notice was issued.
4. Prima facie case analysis for waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery of dues.

The judgment pertains to a case where the assessee had taken excess CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.82,68,868/- during March 2007 to September 2007, which was later reversed upon audit discovery. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued on 15.2.2012, initiating proceedings for the recovery of interest and imposing a penalty on the appellant. The authorized representative of the assessee sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery, contending that the show-cause notice was incorrectly issued under Section 11AA/Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of Section 11A. The representative relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in a similar case to support this argument.

Upon reviewing the records, it was observed that the show-cause notice required the appellant to justify why the wrongly taken CENVAT credit should not be recovered under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, along with Section 11AA/11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The presiding officer noted that the show-cause notice might have been incorrectly issued under the mentioned sections, as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh seemed relevant. The officer also highlighted that the demand could not be sustained in the absence of invoking the extended period under Section 11A. Despite arguments from the Departmental Representative (DR) citing precedents, the presiding officer found merit in the appellant's contention regarding the incorrect section under which the notice was issued, leading to a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit.

Considering the prima facie case made by the appellant on this critical ground, the presiding officer waived the requirement of pre-deposit and granted a stay against recovery during the pendency of the appeal. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the incorrect application of the relevant sections in the show-cause notice, distinguishing it from the precedents cited by the DR. The judgment emphasized the importance of issuing notices under the appropriate sections of the law and the impact it can have on the validity of demands and penalties imposed on the taxpayers.

← Previous Next →