Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (2) TMI 7 - AT - Central Excise


Issues: Disallowance of input credit and recovery upheld by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) - Whether correct or not?

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, including Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit. A Show Cause Notice alleged the appellant had availed excess ineligible CENVAT Credit, contravening Rules 3 and 7 of the CCR, 2004, resulting in a proposal for recovery. The appellant disputed the allegations, claiming a revenue-neutral situation due to cash payment of Service Tax by the ISD unit. The lower authorities upheld the disallowance and recovery, disregarding appellant's contentions and relevant legal precedents cited. The appellant's consistent stand on tax payments and lack of revenue loss indicated a revenue-neutral scenario, negating wilful suppression to evade tax.

The Tribunal noted that the audit did not reveal any Show Cause Notice issued to the ISD unit for alleged incorrect distribution, nor evidence of appellant's involvement in the distribution process. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the rejection of CENVAT credit was unsustainable in a revenue-neutral scenario where tax liabilities were discharged in cash. Legal judgments highlighted that recovery demands cannot be raised at the recipient's end and time-barred demands based on wilful suppression require supporting evidence, absent in this case. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of CENVAT Credit was incorrect and unsustainable in law due to the absence of revenue loss and insufficient evidence of suppression, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law.

In summary, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the lack of evidence supporting wilful suppression, the revenue-neutral nature of the transactions, and the legal precedents emphasizing the recipient's non-liability for recovery. The decision highlighted the importance of substantiating allegations with evidence and ensuring compliance with legal principles in matters of CENVAT Credit disallowance and recovery.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates