2012 (11) TMI 681 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit of differential duty - Superintendent of Central Excise requested to return the RT-12 return submitted for the period from July, 95 to Jan. 96 and the matter was kept pending for a long time because of the file at your office was not available in current desk Held that - In the absence of any response from the department, the appellants were compelled to take credit of the impugned amount on 21-12-1999, which they intimated to the jurisdictional Superintendent through their third letter - concerned authorities have not done their work and not returning the assessed copies of the RE-12 returns to the appellants, and on the other hand in demanding back the impugned amount from the appellants which was paid in excess by them in respect of which they were entitled to take the credit - demand notice and the resultant orders issued by the authorities below are fully unjustified. There are no documents available with the department nor any have been produced in the course of the hearing to prove to the contrary that the appellants are not entitled for the credit of the impugned amount - orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed

Issues:
1. Delay in processing credit for differential duty.
2. Failure to provide assessed copies of RT-12 returns.
3. Demand notice for availed credit without valid documents.
4. Unjustified demand notice and orders.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in processing credit for differential duty
The appellants had intimated the jurisdictional Superintendent about the pending differential duty through multiple letters. Despite repeated requests and follow-ups, the department failed to process the credit, leading the appellants to take credit on their own on 21-12-1999. The officials did not assess the relevant returns submitted by the appellants, even after the returns were traced out by sending a person to the Range Office. The delay in processing the credit was a result of the department's inaction.

Issue 2: Failure to provide assessed copies of RT-12 returns
The appellants highlighted the non-receipt of RT-12 assessed copies duly countersigned by the Superintendent of Central Excise as the reason for the pending issue. The failure of the department to provide these assessed copies hindered the appellants from taking credit of the differential duty, despite their repeated requests and efforts to resolve the matter.

Issue 3: Demand notice for availed credit without valid documents
The department issued a show-cause notice on 4-5-2000, demanding the impugned amount from the appellants. The notice alleged that the appellants availed credit without valid documents, even though they were entitled to take credit of the excess duty paid by them as per Rule 173 I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This demand notice was based on the department's assertion that the appellants did not have valid documents to support the credit availed.

Issue 4: Unjustified demand notice and orders
The Tribunal found that the demand notice and subsequent orders issued by the authorities were unjustified. The department failed to provide any documents or evidence to prove that the appellants were not entitled to the credit of the impugned amount. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, highlighting the lack of justification for the demand notice and orders issued by the authorities.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai highlighted the issues of delay in processing credit, failure to provide assessed copies of returns, unjustified demand notice, and orders. The decision favored the appellants, emphasizing the department's lack of action and evidence to support their demand for the availed credit without valid documents.

← Previous Next →