9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 208 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - maintenance of separate records for inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods or not - HELD THAT - Though it is settled law that the appellate authority should not reverse the identical finding of fact recorded by the two subordinate authorities viz adjudicating authority and first appellate authority still to determine the correctness of the claim made by the appellant the records produced by the appellant are verified on sample basis for the month of December 2013 in the presence of counsel of Appellant during the hearing on 12.09.2024. On next date of hearing i.e. on 03.10.2024 the counsel for appellant failed to provide any explanation and sought adjournment. Appellant didn t filed any submissions even after being allowed time to explain the discrepancies noted during the hearing on 12.09.2023. Thus I have reason to conclude that the appellant has no submission to make in this regards. From perusal of the said documents it is evident that appellant has taken CENVAT credit against the documents in respect of which he claims that no credit was taken. The submission of the appellant in this respect is not supported by the said documents and is totally perverse and appellant has failed to provide any explanation for the same. Conclusion - The requirement for maintaining separate records under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 affirmed. The application of Rule 6(3)(i) for non-compliance upheld resulting in a demand for payment based on the value of exempted goods. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core issues considered in this judgment are: 1. Whether the appellant maintained separate records for inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods as required under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Whether the appellant was liable to pay an amount equal to 5% or 6% of the value of exempted goods under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 due to failure in maintaining separate records. 3. Whether the appellant was liable for the recovery of short-paid duty of Rs. 3,086 and excess rebate of Rs. 30,452 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Whether the interest and penalties imposed under Section 11AA and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were justified. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Maintenance of Separate Records - Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 mandates that manufacturers maintain separate records for inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate the maintenance of separate records. The appellant's submission of purchase and sale lists was deemed inadequate to establish compliance with Rule 6(2). - Key Evidence and Findings: The adjudicating authority noted discrepancies in the appellant's records, particularly the mismatch between raw material purchases and production timelines. - Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not maintain separate records as required, thus failing to comply with Rule 6(2). - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's argument that they maintained separate records was rejected due to lack of corroborative evidence. - Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the finding that the appellant did not maintain separate records, justifying the demand under Rule 6(3)(i). 2. Liability for Payment under Rule 6(3)(i) - Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 requires payment of a percentage of the value of exempted goods if separate records are not maintained. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the adjudicating authority that the appellant was liable to pay Rs. 17,85,239 due to non-compliance with Rule 6(2). - Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's failure to provide adequate records led to the conclusion that they did not maintain separate accounts. - Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied Rule 6(3)(i) to the facts, confirming the appellant's liability for the calculated amount. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's claim of maintaining separate records was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. - Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the demand for payment under Rule 6(3)(i). 3. Recovery of Short-Paid Duty and Excess Rebate - Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governs the recovery of duties not paid or short-paid. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found the recovery of Rs. 3,086 for short-paid duty and Rs. 30,452 for excess rebate justified. - Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant failed to provide evidence contradicting the findings of short payment and excess rebate. - Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied Section 11A to uphold the recovery of the specified amounts. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's arguments lacked supporting documentation and were thus rejected. - Conclusions: The Tribunal confirmed the recovery of short-paid duty and excess rebate. 4. Interest and Penalties - Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 11AA and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provide for interest and penalties on unpaid duties. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found the imposition of interest and penalties appropriate due to the appellant's non-compliance. - Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's failure to maintain separate records and the resultant duty evasion justified penalties. - Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the relevant sections to affirm the imposition of interest and penalties. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's lack of evidence to counter the findings led to the upholding of penalties. - Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the interest and penalties imposed on the appellant. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - The Tribunal affirmed the requirement for maintaining separate records under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - The Tribunal upheld the application of Rule 6(3)(i) for non-compliance, resulting in a demand for payment based on the value of exempted goods. - The recovery of short-paid duty and excess rebate under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was confirmed. - The imposition of interest and penalties under Section 11AA and Section 11AC was deemed justified due to the appellant's contraventions. - The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, maintaining the findings and orders of the lower authorities.
|
