2013 (11) TMI 1342 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat credit Necessary infrastructure for manufacture of finished goods were not available - The Revenue did not dispute the payment of excise duty by supplier of raw materials - nor there is any evidence coming forth in the form of statement or otherwise that applicant had not received the excisable goods in the factory on which they had availed cenvat credit - The applicant thus could able to make out a prima facie case in their favour on this point. Non-production of documents - Shortage of stock Waiver of Pre-deposit - Held that - At the time of the visit of the officers, the applicant could not able to account for the goods and in the reply to the show cause notice, the transformers that were mentioned had been cleared much later than the joint stock taking - applicants claimed that each and every transformers is serially numbered and not a single transformer cleared without payment of duty - it is case of appreciation of evidence - the applicants directed to deposit Rupees Fifteen Lakhs as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
- Denial of Cenvat Credit related to input invoices issued by M/s. A.P. Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
- Allegation of non-accountal of input quantity in the manufacture of finished goods.
- Non-payment/reversal of CENVAT credit for inputs removed for job-work.
- Shortage of finished goods, specifically transformers.

Analysis:
- The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties totaling Rs.5.65 Crores imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The main contention was the denial of Cenvat Credit based on input invoices from M/s. A.P. Electrical Pvt. Ltd. The appellant argued that since excise duty was paid by the supplier, they, as the receiver, should not be penalized for availing Cenvat Credit. The Ld. Consultant highlighted the absence of evidence suggesting non-receipt of inputs by the appellant, making a prima facie case for waiver.

- Another issue involved a demand of Rs.1.79 Crores against the appellant for alleged non-accountal of input quantity used in finished goods. The appellant contended that they had properly accounted for all inputs used, supported by documents like CENVAT credit Raw material Register. Similarly, for a demand of Rs.56.19 Lakhs related to non-payment/reversal of CENVAT credit for inputs removed for job-work, the appellant provided endorsed Annexure-II challans as evidence of receipt from job workers.

- The case also addressed a demand of Rs.18.64 Lakhs due to a shortage of finished goods, particularly transformers. The appellant initially struggled to explain the shortage during a visit but later provided explanations and relevant invoices to justify the accounted transformers. The Revenue challenged these explanations, emphasizing the discrepancy in timelines between stock taking and subsequent clearances.

- Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit and the shortage of finished goods. The Tribunal acknowledged the financial hardship expressed by the appellant and directed a deposit of Rs.15.00 Lakhs within eight weeks, with the balance dues waived and recovery stayed during the appeal. Failure to comply would lead to dismissal of the appeal without further notice, aligning with established legal principles and the interest of Revenue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, evidentiary support, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the waiver of pre-deposit and penalties under the Central Excise Rules, 2002.