9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 281 - AT - Central ExciseMODVAT credit - Denial of exemption benefit under Advance Licence - Invocation of Rule 57E - Held that - Adjudicating authority rejected the claim of the Appellant on the ground that the Rule 57E of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 has put a bar for availing MODVAT Credit on account of fraud, collusion, or any willful mis-statement or contravention of any rules. It is observed that the said Company has contravened the provisions of Customs Act as well as EXIM Policy and therefore, they are not entitled for MODVAT Credit. - Settlement Commission has given a categorical finding on the bonafide of the Appellant. There is no material available on malafide or mis-statement of fraud, etc on the part of the Appellant. Hence, in our considered view, the claim of the Appellant cannot be barred under Rule 57E - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Claim for MODVAT/CENVAT Credit under MODVAT/CENVAT Credit Rules. 2. Application for settlement before the Settlement Commission. 3. Rejection of MODVAT/CENVAT Credit claim by Adjudicating authority. 4. Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection. 5. Dispute over payment of CVD and interest. 6. Interpretation of Rule 57E of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. Verification of payment of CVD by the Appellant. Analysis: Issue 1: Claim for MODVAT/CENVAT Credit under MODVAT/CENVAT Credit Rules The Appellant Company sought MODVAT/CENVAT Credit of Rs. 822.89 lakhs towards CVD paid by them. The Adjudicating authority rejected this claim, citing Rule 57E of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, which barred the Appellants from availing MODVAT Credit due to contravention of Customs Act and EXIM Policy provisions. The Appellant argued that they had paid the CVD, supported by a statement, and emphasized the absence of fraud or misstatement as per the Settlement Commission order. Issue 2: Application for settlement before the Settlement Commission The Company filed an application before the Settlement Commission to settle the case concerning duty demands on duty-free imported material due to unmet export obligations. The Settlement Commission order directed payment of admitted duty liability, with immunity from fines, penalties, and prosecution. The Appellant Company later applied for MODVAT/CENVAT Credit, which was rejected by the Adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Issue 3: Rejection of MODVAT/CENVAT Credit claim by Adjudicating authority The Adjudicating authority rejected the MODVAT/CENVAT Credit claim based on Rule 57E and the absence of evidence supporting CVD payment by the Appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Issue 4: Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection The Appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected, introducing new grounds for denial of MODVAT/CENVAT Credit. The Appellant contended that the rejection was unfounded as they had indeed paid the CVD, as supported by their submission to the Adjudicating authority. Issue 5: Dispute over payment of CVD and interest The dispute revolved around the Appellant's alleged non-payment of interest as directed by the Settlement Commission. The Appellant's inability to pay interest, as claimed by the Revenue, was a point of contention, with the Appellant highlighting their appeal to the Supreme Court on the interest demand issue. Issue 6: Interpretation of Rule 57E of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 The Tribunal analyzed Rule 57E and the Settlement Commission's findings on the Appellant's bonafide actions, concluding that the Appellant's claim should not be barred under this rule due to the lack of evidence of malafide or fraud. Issue 7: Verification of payment of CVD by the Appellant The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority to reexamine the Appellant's claim regarding the payment of CVD. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Appellant to provide supporting material for verification, ensuring a fair assessment based on relevant rules and records. This detailed analysis encapsulates the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment's intricacies and implications.
|
