2017 (4) TMI 145 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - AED - dealer s Certificate - it is the case of Revenue that the said Certificate should be countersigned by the Central Excise Officers, though the dealers are registered with the Central Excise Department - Held that - there is no clarification that the dealer s Certificate would require the countersign of the Central Excise Officers - the appellant should provide the documents to substantiate the dealer s Certificate as available. The Adjudicating Authority would also consider in a reasonable manner to protect the interest of the Revenue - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of CENVAT Credit on Additional Excise Duty (AED) on sugar
- Requirement of Central Excise Officers' countersign on dealer's Certificate
- Time-barred demand contention

Analysis:

Availment of CENVAT Credit on AED: The appellant, engaged in biscuit manufacturing, availed CENVAT Credit on AED (Goods of Special Importance) on sugar. The Commissioner confirmed a demand of ?22,61,489 along with interest and penalty. The appellant contended that they were entitled to the credit based on dealer's Certificate, supported by Circulars and case laws. The Circular No.751/67/2003-CX highlighted the issue of availing credit for inputs received before 1-3-2003. The Tribunal acknowledged the entitlement to CENVAT Credit but emphasized the need for proper documentation to substantiate the dealer's Certificate to protect Revenue interests.

Requirement of Central Excise Officers' countersign: The dispute arose regarding the necessity of Central Excise Officers' countersign on the dealer's Certificate. While no specific requirement was found in CBEC Circulars, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's stance to take necessary action to safeguard Revenue. The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide supporting documents for the Certificate, emphasizing a reasonable consideration by the Adjudicating Authority to protect Revenue interests.

Time-barred demand contention: The appellant also contested the demand as time-barred. However, the Tribunal's decision focused on the substantiation of the dealer's Certificate and the proper verification of documents, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh review. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, granting both parties an opportunity to present evidence in support of their respective positions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of CENVAT Credit availing, documentation requirements, and the Tribunal's directions for a thorough reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority to protect Revenue interests.