9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1211 - AT - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - Non-compliance with pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - utilization of CENVAT credit for payment of pre-deposit amount - Held that - When the appeal was filed, the assessee along with appeal documents has annexed the letter written by them to the Commissioner of Central Excise dt 17/08/2015 wherein he has mentioned that they will be using the CENVAT account for payment of mandatory predeposit and accordingly they have informed the Deputy Registrar of Tribunal also vide their letter dt 18/09/2015. No objection was raised by the Department on his letter dt. 17/08/2015 and the appeal was validly and legally filed. As far as the question of entitlement of the appellant to the CENVAT credit on the inputs is concerned, the same will be examined while deciding the case on merits. But at this stage, for the purpose of Section 35F, they can use the CENVAT credit lying in their CENVAT account and we do not find any infirmity in the said utilization at this stage. Appeal held to be maintainable.
Issues:
- Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act regarding predeposit using CENVAT credit beyond the stipulated period. Analysis: The judgment involves a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue in relation to an appeal against an Order-in-Original confirming duty, penalty, and personal penalty on the Director of a company, along with goods confiscation. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to make a predeposit as required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, as the CENVAT credit claimed was beyond the stipulated one-year period under Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue argued for the dismissal of the appeal based on non-compliance with Section 35F. During the hearing, the Revenue reiterated that the appellant did not meet the Section 35F requirement due to claiming CENVAT credit beyond the stipulated period. On the other hand, the appellant's counsel argued that they had filed the appeal with all necessary documents, including a letter asserting their entitlement to CENVAT credit. The appellant had informed the Tribunal and the Department about their intention to pay the balance through CENVAT credit, which had been accepted without objection. The Tribunal examined the submissions from both parties and found that the appellant had annexed a letter with their appeal documents, clearly stating their intention to use CENVAT credit for the mandatory predeposit. The Department did not object to this assertion at the time of filing. The Tribunal emphasized that the question of entitlement to CENVAT credit on inputs would be addressed during the case's merits evaluation. However, for the purpose of Section 35F compliance, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant could utilize the CENVAT credit available in their account. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application, concluding that the appeal had been validly and legally filed. In the final analysis, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of timely compliance with procedural requirements such as Section 35F while also considering the validity of utilizing CENVAT credit for predeposit purposes. The judgment underscored the need for clear communication and documentation to support such claims, ensuring a fair and transparent adjudication process in matters related to Central Excise regulations.
|
