2018 (1) TMI 629 - AT - Central Excise

Deemed credit - N/N. 29/96 CE (NT) dt. 03.09.1996 - deemed credit disallowed on the ground that the value of raw material was suppressed which resulted into short levy and hence due to such incorrect declaration, the deemed credit is not available to the Appellant - Held that - the price declarations based upon the cost sheet data furnished by the merchant/ trader M/s Jaitex was filed by Appellants. The same is apparent from the statement of Shri Mehra, Proprietor of the Unit and Shri R. Prasad, Authorised signatory. There is no evidence that the Appellant has suppressed or misdeclared the prices. For the incorrect value furnished by the supplier the Appellant cannot be find faulted with. The Revenue has not been able to bring on record any evidence as to collusion of Appellant with M/s Jaitex - in such view of facts the Appellant cannot be held responsible for the alleged offences. Extended period of limitation - Held that - In view of the facts which clearly does not show any act on the part of the Appellant to evade duty payment we hold that the demands raised by invoking extending period of limitation is not sustainable against the Appellant - penalty also set aside - demand only for normal period upheld. Appeal allowed in part.

Issues:
1. Discharge of excise duty on grey fabrics
2. Allegation of suppressed raw material cost
3. Demand of duty and disallowance of deemed credit
4. Adjudication of show cause notices
5. Appeal before the Tribunal
6. Denial of deemed credit and duty payment liability
7. Burden of proof and extended period for demands
8. Appellant's defense and reliance on case laws
9. Revenue's arguments and reliance on judgments
10. Tribunal's analysis and decision

1. Discharge of excise duty on grey fabrics:
The Appellants, merchant manufacturers of grey fabrics for another entity, were discharging excise duty after processing the fabrics under specific notifications. They were also availing deemed credit on clearances. However, an investigation revealed that the cost of raw material was understated by the other entity, leading to less duty payment by the Appellants.

2. Allegation of suppressed raw material cost:
Show cause notices were issued demanding duty payment and disallowance of deemed credit due to the understated raw material cost. The adjudicating authority initially held the other entity liable but later confirmed the demand against the Appellants, citing their duty liability as actual manufacturers.

3. Demand of duty and disallowance of deemed credit:
The Appellants contested the demand, arguing that they were not involved in suppressing the raw material cost. They claimed that the price declarations were based on data provided by the other entity and that they had no knowledge of any misdeclaration. The denial of deemed credit was challenged on the grounds of no misdeclaration on their part.

4. Adjudication of show cause notices:
The Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notices, holding the other entity liable initially but later confirming the demand against the Appellants. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal, seeking recovery of duty from the Appellants.

5. Appeal before the Tribunal:
The Tribunal remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority, which confirmed the demand against the Appellants, citing their duty liability as actual manufacturers and disallowing the deemed credit.

6. Denial of deemed credit and duty payment liability:
The Appellants argued that they had no involvement in misdeclaration and should not be held liable for duty payment or denial of deemed credit. They contended that the demands were time-barred and relied on various legal decisions to support their case.

7. Burden of proof and extended period for demands:
The Revenue argued that the Appellants were liable for duty as manufacturers and that extended period for demands could be invoked. They emphasized the burden of proof on the Appellants regarding their knowledge of any alleged evasion.

8. Appellant's defense and reliance on case laws:
The Appellants maintained that they were not at fault for the misdeclaration of raw material cost and should not be penalized. They cited various tribunal and court judgments to support their argument against the denial of deemed credit and duty liability.

9. Revenue's arguments and reliance on judgments:
The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, asserting the Appellants' duty liability as manufacturers and the permissibility of issuing a second show cause notice for an extended period. They relied on legal judgments to support their position.

10. Tribunal's analysis and decision:
After considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the case papers, the Tribunal found that the Appellants were not responsible for the alleged offenses. They emphasized that the Appellants had filed price declarations based on data provided by the other entity and had not suppressed or misdeclared prices. The Tribunal set aside the demands for the extended period, allowed deemed credit to the Appellants, and upheld penalties imposed only within the normal limitation period. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →