9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 889 - AT - Central ExciseMODVAT credit - manufacture of breakfast cereals - case against the appellant is that the inputs that were shown to have been consumed in the RG 23A Part I was allegedly in excess of that shown in the stock ledger - Held that - the appellant either did not or would not take up the responsibility of reconciling the two records. It is also seen that a plea was entered before the original authority that admitting of the issues and returns would clearly demonstrate that there was no deficit - there is no option but to hold that the appellant did not attempt to participate in a formal closure in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal. Without such reconciliation there is no scope for any reduction in the liability to duty on merit. Extended period of limitation - Held that - There is also no allegation that any goods have been removed clandestinely. The scope for invoking the extended period in section 11A of CEA 1944 does not exist in the absence of the ingredients permitting such. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Dispute over disallowance and recovery of ineligible MODVAT credit, interest, and penalty under Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period from December 1994 to March 1999 on inputs for the manufacture of 'breakfast cereals'. Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Ineligible MODVAT Credit: The case against the appellant was based on discrepancies between inputs shown in the RG 23A Part I and the stock ledger, leading to the disallowance of credit. The Tribunal directed the matter back to the original authority for re-examination based on the explanation of use from the stock ledger. The appellant contested the findings, arguing that the entries in the stock ledger were reliable and followed accounting practices. The legality of penal provisions and interest liability was also challenged. 2. Compliance with Tribunal's Directions: The matter was re-adjudicated by the Commissioner and confirmed, leading to the appellant's appeal. The appellant argued that there was no reason to doubt the use of disputed inputs in the manufacturing process, emphasizing the reliability of stock ledger entries. The appellant also raised concerns about the application of penal provisions and interest liability. 3. Burden of Proof and Evidence: The appellant relied on precedents highlighting the necessity of evidence for duty demand, especially in cases of clandestine removal. The Tribunal's decision in similar cases was cited to support the appellant's position. The Authorized Representative countered with a High Court decision emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee for CENVAT credit admissibility. 4. Reconciliation of Records and Liability to Duty: The Tribunal noted the gaps in reconciling the RG 23A Part I and the stock ledger, leading to doubts about proper accountal. The appellant's failure to reconcile records and participate in formal closure hindered any reduction in duty liability. The importance of reconciling 'supplementary issues' and 'return of surplus' was highlighted. 5. Conclusion and Decision: The Tribunal found no evidence of improper credit or unauthorized use of inputs, leading to the set aside of the impugned order. The absence of clandestine removal and the lack of evidence for extended period recovery under the Central Excise Act, 1944 supported the decision to allow the appeal, rejecting the demand for duty, interest, and penalty. Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on 17/03/2017.
|
