2016 (3) TMI 349 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit pertaining to duty paid on inputs used for the manufacture of non-notified goods - Compounded Levy Scheme - Held that - No separate accounts were maintained with regard to the raw material meant for the notified goods and the non-notified goods. Obviously, therefore it is not possible for the appellant to establish as to how much of the impugned CENVAT Credit would pertain to the inputs which were used in or in relation to manufacture of non-notified goods. It is trite to say that the onus to show as to how much of the impugned CENVAT Credit pertained to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of non-notified goods and as the appellant is admittedly not in a position to discharge the said onus, the Commissioner rightly disallowed the impugned credit

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on non-notified goods and penalty imposition.
2. Claim for Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of non-notified goods.
3. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit for unutilized amount under the Compounded Levy Scheme.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant was manufacturing non-notified goods along with notified goods under the Compound Levy Scheme. A demand for duty and penalty was raised on the non-notified goods. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand but reduced the penalty. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for re-examining the Modvat credit claim on inputs used in manufacturing non-notified goods. The Commissioner allowed a proportionate credit on inputs used and adjusted it against duty liability, which the appellant did not dispute.

Issue 2:
The appellant claimed Cenvat Credit of an unutilized amount before opting for the Compounded Levy Scheme. The Commissioner disallowed this deduction, stating that the credit lapsed due to opting for the scheme. The appellant argued that the credit should be allowed for payment of duty on non-notified goods. However, as no separate records were maintained for inputs used in notified and non-notified goods, the Commissioner rightly disallowed the credit. The appellant failed to prove how much of the credit pertained to non-notified goods, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as the appellant could not demonstrate the portion of Cenvat Credit related to inputs used in non-notified goods due to the lack of separate records. The Commissioner's decision to disallow the credit was upheld, emphasizing the appellant's failure to meet the burden of proof. The judgment in a similar case cited by the appellant was deemed irrelevant in this context, and the dismissal was based on the inability to establish the credit's allocation to non-notified goods.