2017 (9) TMI 1366 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - job-work - receipt of goods with 180 days from the date of removal - Held that - the appellant could not produce the evidence as directed by the Tribunal - The appellant failed to demonstrate before the Adjudicating Authority that the goods were returned back within 180 days from the date of removal of the goods - the Adjudicating Authority rightly disallowed the credit - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit - ?2,66,221/-
2. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit - ?1,41,890/-
3. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit - ?1,02,084/-

Disallowed Cenvat Credit - ?2,66,221/-:
The Tribunal found that there was a duplication of demand in the show cause notice, leading to the matter requiring verification. The appellant argued that the goods were received back within 180 days, and credit was taken within the stipulated period. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the credit based on the inputs not being received within the specified time frame. The Tribunal directed a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant failed to demonstrate the return of goods within 180 days, leading to the acceptance of the Adjudicating Authority's finding.

Disallowed Cenvat Credit - ?1,41,890/- and ?1,02,084/-:
The Tribunal remanded the matter as the appellants claimed credit for duty paid by the supplier of inputs but failed to produce evidence initially. The Adjudicating Authority observed that despite the appellant's commitment to providing evidence of proper duty payment by the supplier, no evidence was submitted. The Tribunal set aside the demand for ?1,41,890/- and ?1,02,084.00, allowing the appellants to produce supporting evidence. The appellant's argument regarding the absence of serial numbers in invoices to prove duty payment was considered, but the Adjudicating Authority rightly disallowed the credit due to the lack of evidence.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed as there was no interference warranted with the Adjudicating Authority's order. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing necessary evidence to support claims for Cenvat credit and the significance of adhering to procedural requirements.