2012 (6) TMI 751 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Excess demand of CENVAT Credit - Held that - demand of CENVAT credit is highly disproportionate to value of raw materials mentioned in the annexure to the show-cause notice. The demand has been made nearly after four years after the flood has been happened in October 2005. A claim settled by the Insurance Company confirms the occurrence of flood. Therefore, we do not prima facie find valid reason to uphold the demand as per the impugned order. In view of the above, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned order and stay of recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of demand of CENVAT credit under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11A.
2. Proportionality of the demand in relation to the value of raw materials damaged.
3. Timeliness of the demand made by the authorities.
4. Impact of insurance settlement on the demand for CENVAT credit.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved a case where the appellant claimed that goods worth Rs. 97 lakhs were damaged in a flood, out of which goods worth Rs. 20 lakhs were salvaged. The appellant received Rs. 61.5 lakhs from insurance for the damages. A show-cause notice was issued proposing a demand of Rs. 12,44,390 under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The tribunal noted that the demand was disproportionate to the value of raw materials mentioned in the notice, which was around Rs. 22 lakhs, and questioned the justification for the demand exceeding Rs. 12 lakhs. The delay of almost four years in raising the demand after the flood, along with the confirmation of the flood by the insurance settlement, led the tribunal to find insufficient grounds to uphold the demand. Consequently, the tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues and stayed the recovery pending the appeal's disposal.

In the judgment, the tribunal considered the evidence presented by the appellant regarding the damage caused by the flood, the salvage value of the goods, and the insurance settlement received. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proportionality in the demand for CENVAT credit, especially concerning the actual value of the damaged raw materials. The delay in issuing the demand after the occurrence of the flood raised concerns about the timeliness and validity of the demand. The tribunal's decision to waive the pre-deposit and stay the recovery was based on the lack of a valid reason to support the demand as per the impugned order, considering the circumstances surrounding the flood, salvage, insurance settlement, and the disproportionate nature of the demand compared to the value of the damaged goods.

Overall, the judgment highlighted the need for a balanced and justified approach in determining demands for CENVAT credit, taking into account factors such as the actual value of goods, timeliness of actions by authorities, and the impact of external settlements like insurance claims. The tribunal's decision to grant relief to the appellant was based on the lack of prima facie validity in the demand raised, given the circumstances and evidence presented during the proceedings.