2017 (12) TMI 1159 - AT - Central Excise

Mis-decaration of inputs - main allegation is that the appellants mis-declared the stock of inputs for availing transitional credit and thus availed excess credit - It is the consistent case of the appellant that the stock cleared by them is correct and although they had stopped making entries in old stock book noted II/2 and started a new book indicated as II/1, the quantity of stock noted in these two books tallies and can be reconciled - Held that - the contention of the appellant that the quantity of stock can be arrived by backward calculation is not to be accepted - The note attached to Schedule J merely states that the exact quantity of sales is unascertainable. It does not mean that it is not possible to ascertain at all. From such statement, what can be reasonably inferred is that it may not be possible to ascertain the figures (quantity of sales) with arithmetical precision. Definitely when the department does not dispute the quantity of inputs purchased, the duty paid on such inputs and the quantity of finished products cleared by appellants during the period, especially March 2001, the quantity of stock held by appellants for the period 7.3.2001/10.03.2001 can be safely arrived at basing on such details - the appellants should be given a further chance to establish their case by reconciliation of the figures in the stock books/statements - matter remanded. Time limitation - Held that - Since the matter is remanded, the said issue also can be considered by the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:

1. Mis-declaration of stock of inputs for availing transitional credit.
2. Excess credit availed by the appellants.
3. Validity of the stock registers maintained by the appellants.
4. Reconciliation of stock entries.
5. Allegations of suppression of facts and limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Mis-declaration of Stock of Inputs for Availing Transitional Credit:

The appellants, engaged in manufacturing corrugated boxes, declared their stock of kraft paper to avail transitional credit after crossing the SSI exemption limit on 10.03.2001. The department alleged that the appellants mis-declared the stock quantities to avail excess credit. Specifically, SL declared 9,08,555 kgs of kraft paper while SP declared 6,51,668 kgs. The department's investigation revealed discrepancies, leading to the conclusion that SL had only 3,24,158 kgs and SP had 3,29,544 kgs of kraft paper, resulting in alleged excess credits of ?23,10,812 and ?13,58,436 respectively.

2. Excess Credit Availed by the Appellants:

The department issued Show Cause Notices (SCNs) to both units, proposing recovery of the excess credit along with interest and penalties. The original authority confirmed the demands, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants contested these findings, arguing that the stock declarations were accurate and that the department's conclusions were based on assumptions without physical stock verification.

3. Validity of the Stock Registers Maintained by the Appellants:

The department found two sets of stock registers during their search. The appellants maintained that the second register (II/1) was started for convenience and that entries in both registers could be reconciled. The department, however, alleged that the new register contained fictitious entries to suit the declared credit. The appellants argued that the entries were consistent and could be verified through reverse calculations from production, clearances, and closing stock details filed with Central Excise and Income Tax authorities.

4. Reconciliation of Stock Entries:

The appellants submitted detailed reconciliation statements to the Tribunal, asserting that the declared stock quantities were correct and could be corroborated by backward calculations from production and clearance data. The department countered this by pointing out discrepancies in the reconciliation, particularly noting a statement in the appellant's Balance Sheet that the exact quantity of sales was unascertainable. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument that the stock quantities could be reasonably inferred from available data and directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the reconciliation statements in a denovo proceeding.

5. Allegations of Suppression of Facts and Limitation:

The appellants argued that they had not suppressed any facts and had furnished all required documents to the department in a timely manner. They contended that the SCNs were issued after an undue delay of more than two years, despite the department having ample opportunity to verify the stock declarations earlier. The Tribunal noted that this issue should also be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority during the remand proceedings.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a detailed reconsideration of the reconciliation statements and all related issues, including the argument on limitation. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, with directions for the adjudicating authority to thoroughly examine the appellants' submissions and the department's responses.

Order Pronouncement:

The order was pronounced in the open Court on 08.12.2017.

← Previous Next →