2014 (10) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Non production of relevant documents - Held that - G-23A part-I & part-II records were maintained during the relevant period by the Appellant. However, we agree with the Ld.A.R. for the Revenue that these aspects needs scrutiny by the adjudicating authority before taking a call on the admissibility of CENVAT Credit to the Appellant during the said period. Accordingly, after setting aside the impugned order we remit the case to the Ld.Commissioner for deciding the issue afresh taking into consideration the evidences produced before this Tribunal and also evidences that would be produced by the Appellants in support of their claim that they have correctly availed CENVAT Credit by maintaining proper accounts during the period in dispute. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit, penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, and penalty on Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:

Waiver of Pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit and Penalties:
The Appellant filed applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 1.59 Crores, penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and a penalty of Rs. 25.00 Lakhs on the Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Appellant's advocate argued that they had meticulously maintained records of CENVAT Credit utilization, even though the Commissioner denied the credit due to the unavailability of proper records during a specific period. The Appellant had already deposited Rs. 20.00 Lakhs against the total demand, which was not disputed by either side. Consequently, the Tribunal found the deposit sufficient and proceeded to dispose of the Appeals without the need for further payment, with both parties consenting to this decision.

Dispute over CENVAT Credit Availability:
The main dispute between the Revenue and the Appellant centered around the availability of CENVAT Credit on inputs received and used in manufacturing finished goods from August 18, 2008, to March 31, 2009. The Revenue contended that the demand was confirmed due to the Appellant's failure to produce relevant documents substantiating the correct availing of CENVAT Credit during the disputed period. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the RG-23A part-I & part-II records were maintained by the Appellant during the relevant period. However, acknowledging the need for further scrutiny, the Tribunal remitted the case to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Commissioner was directed to consider the evidence presented before the Tribunal and any additional evidence the Appellants would provide to support their claim of correctly availing CENVAT Credit by maintaining proper accounts during the disputed period. The Appeals were allowed by way of remand, and the Stay Petitions were disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues related to seeking waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit and penalties, as well as the dispute over the availability of CENVAT Credit, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision and the reasoning behind it.