9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 656 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - exempt goods - IOPAMIDOL - Allegation on the ground that it did not pay the amount equal to 10% of the sale price of exempted goods - period September 2006 to December 2008 - HELD THAT - The department has invoked the provisions of Rule 6(3) to hold that the appellant has not maintained the prescribed records and thus, is liable to pay 10% of the amount of sale price of the exempted goods. Since there are contradictions in the stand of the Revenue as well as the appellant regarding maintenance of adequate records, we are of the view that this particular aspect has to be re-examined at the original level for proper appreciation, as to whether, the requirement of erstwhile Rule 6(2) (effective upto February 2008) and the amended provisions incorporated thereafter under the CENVAT statute would be applicable and whether the subsequent amendment took place in the CENVAT statute consequent to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2010 would have any application for deciding the issue. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in the case. 2. Maintenance of adequate records for CENVAT Credit. 3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and amendments under the CENVAT statute. 4. Adjudication of demand for payment equal to 10% of the sale price of exempted goods. Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 The appellant contended that Rule 6(3)(b) should not be applicable as they reversed the CENVAT Credit on inputs used for manufacturing exempted final products. The department, however, upheld the demand under Rule 6(3)(b) due to the alleged lack of specific records. The Tribunal noted the contradiction and decided to re-examine this aspect at the original level for a proper determination. Issue 2: Maintenance of adequate records for CENVAT Credit The appellant claimed that the records maintained were sufficient as per the statutory requirements under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. In contrast, the department invoked Rule 6(3) based on the alleged failure to maintain prescribed records. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the records and statutory provisions by the original authority to address this discrepancy. Issue 3: Interpretation of statutory provisions and amendments under the CENVAT statute The Tribunal highlighted the importance of analyzing the applicability of Rule 6 and its sub-rules, along with the retrospective amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2010. The original authority was directed to delve into the statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements to make a well-informed decision on the matter. Issue 4: Adjudication of demand for payment equal to 10% of the sale price of exempted goods Considering the discrepancies and lack of clarity regarding the maintenance of records and application of statutory provisions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh adjudication. The appellant was granted the opportunity for a denovo adjudication with a focus on ensuring a fair hearing before a new decision is reached.
|
