2018 (3) TMI 1500 - AT - Customs

Advance licence scheme - N/N. 203/92-Cus dated 19.05.1992 - CENVAT credit - Held that - no documentary evidence was relied upon in support of the allegation made in the SCN. Therefore, whatever allegation made by Revenue is made on assumption and presumption and on that ground itself the proceeding was supposed to be dropped - In the case of export, the AR-4s was signed by the jurisdictional officer therefore, whatever declaration was made was found correct and accepted by the jurisdictional officer. Therefore, there is no material contrary on record to dispute the factual position of non-avaiment of CENVAT credit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of contravening exemption notification no.203/92-Cus.
2. Availment of CENVAT Credit under rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Legal validity of dropping proceedings by the adjudicating authority.
4. Lack of documentary evidence and verification by departmental officers.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an appeal against the dropping of proceedings in a show-cause notice dated 09.06.1998, alleging contravention of exemption notification no.203/92-Cus regarding imported goods under the advance license scheme. The Commissioner noted that the respondent had declared in their AR4s for export that they had not availed CENVAT Credit, and any credit taken had been reversed before exporting goods charged at nil duty. The Commissioner also referenced a previous case where proceedings were dropped based on a Supreme Court judgment.

2. The Revenue, represented by Ms. Vinitha Sekhar, argued that the adjudicating authority erred in concluding that no input stage credit had been availed, as the respondent's supporting manufacturer had allegedly availed CENVAT Credit under rule 57A. The Revenue contended that the submission made by the respondent during the personal hearing, supported by AR4s with no MODVAT Credit endorsement, was insufficient evidence. They claimed that the lack of verification of documents by departmental officers rendered the adjudicating authority's decision improper.

3. Despite the absence of the respondent during the proceedings, the Tribunal carefully considered the Revenue's arguments. It was observed that no documentary evidence supported the allegations in the show-cause notice, leading to conclusions based on assumptions. However, the Commissioner had explicitly noted that the AR4s for exported goods declared no MODVAT credit availed, signed by the jurisdictional officer. The Tribunal found this declaration, verified by the officer, to be correct and accepted, with no contradicting evidence on record. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

4. The lack of documentary evidence and verification by departmental officers played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision. The absence of proof to support the Revenue's allegations led to the dismissal of the appeal, as the declarations made in the AR4s for exported goods, verified by the jurisdictional officer, were deemed valid and unchallenged. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of factual evidence and proper verification in such cases to establish the legality of allegations and uphold fair proceedings.