9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 2 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT Credit - appellant referred extensively to the letter dated 19.01.2017 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner in response to the letter submitted by the appellant for furnishing a certificate relating to CENVAT credit in terms of the order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner - HELD THAT - It clearly transpires from the letter dated 19.01.2017 sent by the Assistant Commissioner to the appellant that from the records, including the original invoices supplied by the appellant, the appellant had paid duty to the extent of Rs. 2,32,46,986/-. The Principal Commissioner, however, without adverting to this letter has recorded a finding that the appellant failed to submit documents despite repeated opportunities having been granted to the appellant. This finding recorded by the Principal Commissioner is perverse as the letter dated 19.01.2017 was on the record. This letter should have been considered by the Principal Commissioner before recording any finding on the admissibility of CENVAT credit - The appellant has not challenged the the order passed by the Principal Commissioner on merits. The portion of the finding recorded by the Principal Commissioner in the impugned order that the appellant is not entitled for CENVAT credit deserves to be set aside and is set aside. The appellant is held entitled to CENVAT credit in terms of the letter dated 19.01.2017 sent by the Assistant Commissioner to the appellant. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit by the Principal Commissioner. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Principal Commissioner confirming the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 29,22,611/- and denying the demand of Rs. 6,17,19,299/-. The appellant specifically contested the portion of the order in paragraph 10.4.1 that denied CENVAT credit. The appellant argued that the Assistant Commissioner had certified, based on the appellant's submissions and documents, that an amount of Rs. 2,32,46,986/- was paid as duty by the appellant. This certification was in response to a previous order directing the appellant to approach the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner for examination of CENVAT credit eligibility. The Assistant Commissioner's report highlighted various key points regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit. It mentioned that the appellant's main raw material was sugar, which was procured from sugar mills with duty payments. The report also noted that the appellant submitted original invoices, but lacked certain details like Central Excise registration number. Additionally, it was highlighted that the duty paid on sugar varied over different periods and that no credit for Sugar cess paid was admissible. The report also mentioned an undertaking by the appellant regarding the use of sugar in manufacturing exempted goods and trading. The Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner's finding of the appellant's failure to submit documents was incorrect, as the Assistant Commissioner's certification letter dated 19.01.2017 was on record and should have been considered. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit based on the Assistant Commissioner's letter, and therefore, set aside the portion of the order denying CENVAT credit. The Tribunal modified the impugned order accordingly, allowing the appeal only to the extent of granting CENVAT credit as per the Assistant Commissioner's certification.
|
