2012 (12) TMI 944 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Held that - Grounds of appeal were perused and nothing demonstrates as to how the appellant made further processing when the goods vanished at the supplier s hand and not reached to the appellant. Mere paper credit was passed on to the appellant. Plea of cross-examination was modality to follow dilatory tactics to deprive revenue from getting its legitimate dues. - there is no question of admissibility of cenvat credit to the appellant because no goods reached to appellant for further processing at its end - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of stay based on cross-examination not allowed.
2. Adjournment application rejection.
3. Admissibility of CENVAT credit.
4. Applicability of extended period under Rule 57(I)(i)(ii).
5. Invocability of penalty under Rule 209A.
6. Cross-examination of accused in another case.
7. Confirmation of duty demand.

Grant of Stay based on Cross-Examination:
The judgment begins by noting that stay was granted to the appellant solely because cross-examination was not allowed. However, the appellant and their authorized representative failed to appear despite multiple adjournments. The tribunal rejected the adjournment application based on the mere execution of a fresh vakalatnama, emphasizing that the ground was not sufficient to warrant further delay.

Admissibility of CENVAT Credit:
The adjudication order highlighted that the copper rods purchased by the appellant were allegedly sold in the open market against cash, with corresponding entries in RG-23 Part I and II. The authority examined various issues, including the admissibility of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.2,39,120, the applicability of the extended period under Rule 57(I)(i)(ii), and the potential penalty under Rule 209A for the Works Manager. The absence of cross-examination of accused individuals from another case was also a point of consideration.

Confirmation of Duty Demand:
The tribunal reviewed the grounds of appeal and found no evidence to support the appellant's claim that the goods vanished at the supplier's end and did not reach them. It was concluded that the plea for cross-examination was a dilatory tactic to avoid paying legitimate dues. As no goods were received for further processing, the admissibility of CENVAT credit was questioned, leading to the confirmation of the duty demand in the adjudication order.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed based on the findings that the appellant did not receive the goods for processing, rendering the CENVAT credit inadmissible. The tribunal upheld the duty demand, emphasizing that the appellant's actions seemed to be aimed at avoiding payment rather than genuine procedural concerns.