2017 (2) TMI 90 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - unaccounted obsolete stock of raw material lying in the factory of the assessee and on the goods consumed captively for manufacture of dutiable goods cleared at nil rate of duty - Held that - the impugned order has simply ignored the issue on limitation raised by the appellants. It has been claimed that the clearance to SEZ have taken place under CT-3 and AR-3 documents and therefore, were within the knowledge of revenue. It is also claimed that part of the demand is for the period beyond five year. The impugned order does not deal with the issues - appeal is allowed by way of remand for comprehensive examination of issues raised by the appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Demand of reversal of Cenvat Credit on unaccounted obsolete stock of raw material
2. Demand of reversal of Cenvat Credit on goods consumed captively for manufacturing dutiable goods cleared at nil rate of duty against CT-3 certificate to Special Economic Zone
3. Failure to address the issue of limitation raised by the appellant

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s. S.H. KeIkar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., received a show-cause notice demanding reversal of Cenvat Credit on obsolete raw material stock and goods consumed for manufacturing dutiable goods cleared at nil duty rate to SEZ. The duty demand was confirmed by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the raw materials were still in the factory, not written off, and were not waste. They claimed the reversal was under coercion and objected to the lack of a technically qualified authority's decision on material utility. The appellant contended that even if obsolete, material in the factory did not require credit reversal. They raised issues of non-receipt of intelligence report, denial of cross-examination, misinterpretation of duty exemption, and limitation on the demand period from 1999 to 2004.

2. Despite the appellant's absence, the Tribunal considered the appeal memorandum's arguments. The appellant highlighted that the clearance to SEZ was known to the revenue through CT-3 and AR-3 documents, challenging the demand period exceeding five years. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order overlooked the limitation issue and failed to address the clearance method to SEZ known to the revenue. It noted the demand period exceeding five years was not addressed in the order, leading to the conclusion that the order was unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for a comprehensive re-examination of the raised issues.

3. The Tribunal's decision, pronounced on 04/01/2017, emphasized the necessity for a thorough examination of the appellant's concerns regarding the demand for Cenvat Credit reversal on obsolete raw material and goods consumed for manufacturing dutiable goods cleared at nil duty rate to SEZ. The Tribunal's ruling highlighted the importance of addressing the limitation issue and the clearance method's impact on the demand period, ensuring a fair and comprehensive assessment of the appellant's arguments for a just outcome.