9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 646 - AT - Central ExciseDemand- The respondents are engaged in the processing of marble slabs. On 18-9-2003 Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Marble Industries (P) Ltd., held that cutting of marble blocks into slabs does not amount to manufacture. A show cause notice dated 19-10-2004 was issued proposing to disallow and to recover the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,75,481/- under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. It has been alleged that the amount of Rs. 27,445/- was collected by the respondents from the customers as central excise duty by debiting from Cenvat account after the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court is liable to be recovered in cash under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Original authority disallowed the credit of Rs. 1,315/-. He also appropriated the amount of Rs. 27,445/- debited by the respondents on the goods exported in Government account. He further dropped the demand of interest. A penalty of Rs. 500/- was imposed under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected. Hence, Revenue filed this appeal. In the light of the various decisions held that- I find that the respondents used capital goods prior to 18-9-2003 and Cenvat credit lying in balance on 18-9-2003 is not disallowable and would not lapse. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
Issues:
1. Disallowance and recovery of Cenvat credit under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 2. Recovery of amount collected as central excise duty after a Supreme Court decision. 3. Appropriation of amount debited by the respondents on exported goods. 4. Disallowance of Cenvat credit and demand of interest. 5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Issue 1: Disallowance and recovery of Cenvat credit under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 The case involved a show cause notice proposing disallowance and recovery of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,75,481 under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, due to the cutting of marble blocks into slabs not being considered as manufacture post a Supreme Court decision. The original authority disallowed a portion of the credit and imposed a penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue challenged this decision. Issue 2: Recovery of amount collected as central excise duty after a Supreme Court decision The Revenue contended that the amount of Rs. 27,445 collected by the respondents from customers as central excise duty after a Supreme Court decision should be recovered in cash under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not be appropriated in the Cenvat account. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 11D and relevant case laws to determine the liability for duty payment post the Supreme Court's decision. Issue 3: Appropriation of amount debited by the respondents on exported goods The original authority had appropriated the amount of Rs. 27,445 debited by the respondents on goods exported in the Government account. The Tribunal examined the appropriateness of this action in light of the legal provisions and factual circumstances of the case. Issue 4: Disallowance of Cenvat credit and demand of interest The case also involved the disallowance of Cenvat credit and the demand of interest. The Tribunal reviewed the eligibility of Cenvat credit on capital goods and the lapse of credit balance based on the timing of goods receipt and production activities. Relevant Supreme Court decisions were cited to support the findings. Issue 5: Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 The imposition of a penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was a point of contention. The Tribunal considered the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue and the arguments presented by both sides before making a decision based on the legal provisions and precedents cited during the proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal after a thorough analysis of the issues, legal provisions, and relevant case laws. The decision was based on the interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the application of principles established in previous judgments by the Supreme Court and other tribunals.
|
