2013 (12) TMI 85 - AT - Central Excise

Non-reversal of cenvat credit Inputs lying as semi-finished goods Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Prima facie, common registrations and maintenance of common PLA/Cenvat accounts had to be maintained till 23-9-2009 till separate registrations to three units were granted - The common credit taken with respect to all the three units at one place by transferring the credits admissible and lying with all the three units apparently appears justifiable - Appellant cannot be expected to maintain separate accounts without getting separate Central Excise registrations from the proper authority Appellants have made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the dues and penalties Pre-deposits waived till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay applications against OIO confirming show cause notices.
2. Transfer of Cenvat credit without issuance of invoices.
3. Non-reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs.
4. Request for separate registrations and maintenance of common accounts.
5. Argument on maintaining separate records after request for separate registration.
6. Prima facie case for waiver of confirmed dues and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The stay applications were filed against OIO confirming show cause notices related to the transfer of Cenvat credit without issuing invoices and non-reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs.

2. The issue arose from the transfer of Cenvat credit from one unit to another without proper documentation. The last show cause notice concerned the non-reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs in semi-finished and finished goods at different units.

3. The appellant argued for the maintenance of common accounts until separate registrations were granted. The request for separate registrations was initially rejected but granted later after prolonged litigation and intervention by the Bench.

4. The argument presented was that the appellant should have stopped maintaining separate records after requesting separate registrations in 2005. However, separate registrations were only granted in 2009 after legal intervention.

5. The Tribunal observed that common registrations and maintenance of common accounts were justified until separate registrations were obtained. The appellant was not expected to maintain separate accounts without proper registrations. A prima facie case was established for a complete waiver of confirmed dues and penalties.

6. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal granted a stay on the recoveries of all confirmed demands and penalties until the appeal was disposed of, acknowledging the appellant's justification for maintaining common accounts until separate registrations were obtained.