9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 765 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - 4% Additional Customs Duty (SAD) - It is the contention of the Department that 4% SAD paid on such imported goods without its receipt and use in the factory premises is not admissible as credit to the Appellant. Held that - even though appellant have sold the goods on its import from the place import itself, by raising commercial invoice, but they have intentionally and knowingly manipulated the records making false entry in the RG 23A part I and Part II showing its receipt and also prepared issue slips, allotting chit numbers so as to indicate that the same had been used in the factory - such manipulations of the record, cannot in any circumstances be considered as an intention not to avail the CENVAT credit, which is inadmissible to them, but an innocent belief of the Budget speech of the Finance Minister - Also, the eligibility of refund of 4% SAD paid on selling of the imported goods as such after 14.9.2007, subject to the fulfillment of the condition laid down in the said Notification would not come to the rescue to the Appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
- Admissibility of CENVAT credit of 4% Additional Customs Duty (SAD) on imported goods traded without being utilized in the factory premises - Barred by limitation defense for demand notice issued - Manipulation of records by the Appellant to avail inadmissible credit - Revenue neutral situation post-Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 - Department's contention on intentional manipulation of records by the Appellant - Appellant's defense based on bona fide belief and Budget Speech of the Finance Minister Analysis: Admissibility of CENVAT Credit: The Appellants traded imported goods without utilizing them in the factory premises, leading to a dispute over the admissibility of CENVAT credit of 4% SAD. The Department argued that credit on such goods was inadmissible, while the Appellant contended that the demand was time-barred and the situation was revenue neutral post a specific notification. Barred by Limitation Defense: The Appellant raised a defense of limitation, arguing that the demand notice issued for the period was beyond the statutory limitation period. They claimed that all relevant facts were known to the Department through periodic audits, challenging the invocation of an extended limitation period. Manipulation of Records: The Department alleged that the Appellant manipulated records to falsely show receipt and utilization of imported goods in the factory premises. The Appellant's intentional manipulation of records to avail inadmissible credit was a key contention, supported by evidence from RG 23A registers. Revenue Neutral Situation: The Appellant asserted a revenue neutral situation post a specific notification, claiming entitlement to a refund of 4% SAD paid on imported goods. However, the Department argued that eligibility for the refund required specific conditions to be fulfilled, which the Appellant failed to meet. Intentional Manipulation: The Department contended that the Appellant intentionally manipulated records to evade scrutiny, as evidenced by fabricated issue slips and false entries in registers. This intentional manipulation was crucial in determining the Appellant's intention to avail inadmissible credit. Bona Fide Belief Defense: The Appellant defended their actions based on a bona fide belief following the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister. They argued that no malafide intention existed, emphasizing their innocence in the manipulation of records and the belief in the legality of their actions. In the judgment, the Tribunal upheld the order, dismissing the Appeals filed by the Appellants. The Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's contentions, ruling that the intentional manipulation of records and failure to meet refund eligibility conditions undermined their defense. The judgment emphasized the inadmissibility of credit on traded goods and rejected the Appellant's defenses based on limitation, revenue neutrality, and bona fide belief.
|
