9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 885 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit Waiver of Pre-deposit - The principal allegation against the Applicant is that they had availed CENVAT Credit on the basis of input invoices only, without receiving the materials and utilizing the same in the manufacture of finished goods Held that - The Commissioner in the Order has made categorical finding whereby he recorded and analyzed the evidences in arriving at conclusion that the Applicant had availed the CENVAT Credit on various invoices without receiving the materials in their factory - Prima facie, the result of analysis of evidences by the ld. Commissioner are convincing and the Applicant could not rebut those evidences by way of filing any reply or contrary - the Applicant No.(1), directed to deposit 50% of the duty involved upon such submission rest of the pre-deposit of the dues adjudged would be waived against all the Applicants and its recovery would be stayed during pendency of the Appeals Partial stay granted.
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, imposition of personal penalty on Director, availing CENVAT Credit without receiving materials.
Analysis: 1. The two Applications sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, along with a personal penalty imposed on the Director. The Tribunal noted the lack of seriousness from the Applicant's side in pursuing the case, as they failed to appear or request adjournment on the scheduled dates. 2. The Revenue's argument highlighted the case involving the removal of goods without duty payment and wrongful availing of CENVAT Credit. The Applicant did not participate in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority or respond to the show cause notice. The Commissioner's findings indicated that the Applicant falsely claimed CENVAT Credit without actually receiving or utilizing the materials, constituting a paper credit. 3. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal acknowledged the serious allegation against the Applicant for availing CENVAT Credit without receiving the materials for manufacturing finished goods. The Commissioner's detailed analysis supported the conclusion that the Applicant had wrongly claimed the credit. As the Applicant failed to rebut the evidences or provide a response, the Tribunal directed them to deposit 50% of the duty within eight weeks. Compliance would lead to the waiver of pre-deposit and stay on recovery during the appeal process, while non-compliance would result in the dismissal of all appeals without further notice.
|
