2016 (7) TMI 1202 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty - When the Commissioner in the impugned order has not given the appellants benefit of Cenvat credit on capital goods the appellants plead that after allowing them benefit of admissible Cenvat credit the actual duty liability is to be revised. - invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - Both the appeals are remanded back to the Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore-1 for re-computation of the liability of payment of Central Excise duty interest and imposition of penalties if any. - Matter remanded back with directions.

Summary

Issues:
1. Re-computation of duty liability based on Modvat credit on capital goods.
2. Denial of Modvat credit on capital goods and high-pitched duty demand.
3. Incorrect calculation of value of clearances leading to high duty demand.
4. Failure to appropriate additional deposits made by the appellants.
5. Revision of duty liability and penalties based on re-computation.

Analysis:
1. The appellants contested the impugned order rejecting their claim for Modvat credit on capital goods and the computation of duty demand. They argued that there were mistakes in the duty computation, denial of Modvat credit, and incorrect value of clearances considered. They emphasized the need for re-computation based on the correct amounts and deductions. The appellants also highlighted discrepancies in the duty liability and penalties imposed, stating that they had made additional payments and deposits which were not duly considered by the Commissioner.

2. The appellants presented evidence, including a Chartered Accountant certificate, to support their claim for Cenvat credit on capital goods. However, the impugned order did not acknowledge this evidence, leading to the denial of the credit. The appellants also pointed out that the impugned order failed to factor in the additional deposits made as per the Tribunal's directions. Moreover, discrepancies in the value of clearances were highlighted, indicating errors in the duty demand calculation.

3. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the submissions and facts presented by both parties. It noted the grievances raised by the appellants regarding the denial of Cenvat credit, failure to appropriate additional deposits, and errors in the calculation of duty liability. After thorough consideration, the Tribunal remanded both appeals back to the Commissioner for re-computation of duty liability, interest, and penalties. Specific instructions were provided to ensure proper consideration of Cenvat credit, additional payments, and accurate valuation of clearances. The Commissioner was directed to allow the appellants to present necessary evidence for their defense during the fresh adjudication process.

4. The Tribunal's decision to remand the appeals for re-computation reflects a fair and thorough approach to address the appellants' grievances and ensure a just resolution based on the correct assessment of duty liability and penalties. The detailed instructions provided to the Commissioner aim to rectify the errors and discrepancies highlighted by the appellants, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant evidence and factors in determining the final duty liability and penalties.