2019 (2) TMI 846 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - write off of inputs/capital goods on which CENVAT credit availed - obsolete stock - Held that - There cannot be two opinions that the appellant had required to pay the amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit availed as soon as the inputs/capital goods written off by them and they did not. If they had used some or all materials from which they had reverse the CENVAT credit subsequently there could have taken credit of such amount as per the proviso. Therefore there is no infirmity in the lower authority confirming the demand and the First Appellate Authority upholding the demand along with interest and penalties. However the appellant now submits that they have documents to show that they have subsequently used the written off material. This requires a detailed examination of the documents and re-calculation of the amount of credit to be reversed and interest as well as the penalties - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of CENVAT credit on inputs/capital goods written off as obsolete stock.
2. Admissibility of credit on subsequent use of inputs/capital goods.
3. Allegations of wilful suppression and penalty imposition.
4. Request for remand based on new evidence of subsequent use of written-off material.

Issue 1 - Reversal of CENVAT credit:
The appellant, a manufacturer of empty glass bottles, faced a demand for reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 3(5B) of the CCR, 2004 for not paying an amount equivalent to the credit taken on inputs/capital goods written off as obsolete stock. The demand was made under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, with interest under Section 11AA and penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004. The lower authority confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the First Appellate Authority, emphasizing the requirement to reverse credit when writing off goods, regardless of subsequent use.

Issue 2 - Admissibility of credit on subsequent use:
The appellant claimed entitlement to credit on subsequent use of inputs for manufacturing glass bottles, arguing for revenue neutrality. However, the First Appellate Authority upheld the demand as the appellant failed to provide conclusive proof of subsequent use, maintaining that credit reversal at the time of write-off was necessary unless proven otherwise.

Issue 3 - Allegations of wilful suppression and penalty imposition:
The appellant contested allegations of wilful suppression, citing regular filing of returns disclosing obsolete stock. However, the authority found the appellant's failure to disclose the write-off until audit as suppression, justifying penalty imposition under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004.

Issue 4 - Request for remand based on new evidence:
The appellant sought a remand based on new evidence showing subsequent use of written-off material. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for detailed examination of the evidence to re-calculate the credit to be reversed, interest, and penalties. The matter was remanded to the original authority for reevaluation, emphasizing the importance of debiting the amount initially and recovering interim interest where applicable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, highlighting the necessity for a thorough review of the evidence presented by the appellant to determine the revised demand, interest, and penalties in accordance with Rule 3(5B) of CCR, 2004 and relevant legal provisions.