9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1087 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre-deposit of cenvat credit - It is alleged by the Department on the basis of evidences collected that M/s Koolmint Manufacturing Company, do not have necessary infrastructure for manufacture of the inputs, therefore, the receipt and availment of cenvat credit by M/s Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., on the said inputs were, accordingly irregular. - Held that - an amount of ₹ 15.00 lakhs has been deposited by M/s Koolmint Manufacturing Company during adjudication and now the ld.C. A. for the Applicants, makes an offer to deposit further amount of ₹ 7.5 lakhs, which, in our opinion, is sufficient to hear their Appeals. In the result, we direct M/s Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., to deposit ₹ 7.5 lakhs within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance on 30.12.2014. On deposit of the said amount, the balance amount of dues adjudged against Applicant No. (i) & (iii) and all dues adjudged against Applicant No.(ii), i.e. Shri Vikash Bajoria, would stand waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeals - Partial stay granted.
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of cenvat credit and penalties under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Analysis: The judgment involves the application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of cenvat credit and penalties imposed under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Applicant No.(i), M/s Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., availed CENVAT Credit on duty paid inputs supplied by M/s Koolmint Manufacturing Company, Applicant No. (iii), for the manufacture of finished goods. The Department alleged that M/s Koolmint Manufacturing Company did not have the necessary infrastructure for input manufacturing, making the receipt and utilization of inputs by M/s Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd. incorrect. The Department demanded recovery of cenvat credit and duty paid by M/s Koolmint Manufacturing Company under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The defense of the Applicants relied on evidences to prove that the inputs were indeed manufactured and supplied by M/s Koolmint Manufacturing Company and used in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal found the issue to be whether the cenvat credit availed by M/s Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd. was admissible, considering the irregularities alleged by the Department. An amount of &8377; 15.00 lakhs was already deposited by M/s Koolmint Manufacturing Company during adjudication, and an offer was made to deposit an additional amount of &8377; 7.5 lakhs. The Tribunal directed M/s Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd. to deposit the said amount within eight weeks, failing which would result in the dismissal of all Appeals without further notice. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and analyzed the evidences to determine the admissibility of the cenvat credit availed by M/s Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd. The defense emphasized that the inputs were necessary for the manufacturing process and were indeed used in the production of finished goods. The Department contended that the receipt of inputs was irregular due to the lack of infrastructure at M/s Koolmint Manufacturing Company. The Tribunal acknowledged the deposit made by M/s Koolmint Manufacturing Company and the offer for further deposit, deeming it sufficient to proceed with the Appeals. The directive to deposit an additional amount was aimed at ensuring compliance and securing the balance amount of dues adjudged against the Applicants. The Tribunal emphasized that failure to comply with the deposit requirement would lead to the dismissal of all Appeals without further notice. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of admissibility of cenvat credit and penalties under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, focusing on the irregularities in the receipt and utilization of inputs by M/s Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal's decision to direct the deposit of a specific amount aimed to facilitate the continuation of the Appeals process while ensuring compliance with the financial obligations determined during adjudication. The judgment highlighted the significance of evidences and compliance with deposit requirements for the resolution of the legal dispute.
|
