2014 (11) TMI 302 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of Pre-deposit - Repairing of TV sets - Manufacturing activity or mere repairing activity - CENVAT credit eligibility - Differential duty - Whether TV sets removed on payment of duty are the same ones received for repairs and removed - Whether appellant could not have taken Cenvat credit of the duty paid on TV sets which were received back by them and sold again - Assessee failed to account for receipt of returned goods vis-a-vis dispatched items as required under Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Adjudicating authority also dismissed statement submitted by assessee matching the removed TV sets with the received ones without verification with available records - Held that - appellant simply paid the duty applicable at the time of removal of repaired TV sets taking a stand that the process undertaken by them amount to manufacture. In our view, having regard to the nature of the product, manufacturing process and activity undertaken by the appellant as per their own statement, the process undertaken on the TV sets received back cannot be considered as manufacture. Therefore, the appellant should have reversed the entire amount of Cenvat credit taken at the time of return of TV sets to their factory and not the amount payable on fresh removal of TV sets as duty during the relevant period. - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Duty demand on TV sets under Rule 16 of Cenvat Credit Rules - Failure to show TV sets received back for repair/remanufacture - Consideration of TV sets as manufactured afresh - Payment of duty difference - Verification of records - Admissibility of Cenvat credit - Nature of manufacturing process on returned TV sets - Reversal of Cenvat credit amount - Payment of interest on the differential amount.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a duty demand of Rs. 91,32,852/- on TV sets against the appellant due to their alleged failure to demonstrate that the TV sets removed for repair/remanufacture were received back. The appellant argued that they paid Rs. 26,50,000/- as the difference between duty paid and total payable on TV sets, but the Revenue contended that no TV sets were received back, questioning the admissibility of Cenvat credit. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the reports regarding the verification of records and emphasized the need for a detailed examination.

The appellant provided detailed statements regarding the TV sets, but the Tribunal found inconsistencies in matching returned TV sets with dispatched ones. Despite the Revenue's claim of no records being maintained, the appellant insisted records were available. The Tribunal highlighted the requirement under Rule 16 of Cenvat Credit Rules for accounting the receipt and dispatch of returned materials, noting the lack of clear findings or verification in the impugned order. The Tribunal deemed it inappropriate to dismiss the appellant's claims without proper verification.

Regarding the nature of the manufacturing process on returned TV sets, the Tribunal disagreed with the appellant's stance that the process amounted to manufacture. It was determined that the appellant should have reversed the entire Cenvat credit amount taken at the return of TV sets, rather than paying only a portion as duty. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pay the difference between the amount paid and the actual payable, along with applicable interest. While the appellant had deposited the differential amount, interest remained outstanding, leading to the directive to deposit the interest within a specified timeline to avoid penalties and stay against recovery.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the duty demand issue on TV sets, the necessity for proper record verification, the admissibility of Cenvat credit, and the determination of the manufacturing process on returned TV sets. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of accurate record-keeping, compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, and the obligation to pay the correct duty amount along with accrued interest.