9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 148 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - Held that - the appellant has by oversight availed 100% of the credit on capital goods wherein the appellant was required to take only 50% in the first financial order and the remaining in the next financial year; but as soon as the Department pointed out this lapse, the duty was reversed along with interest. In that kind of a situation, as per Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, the show-cause notice should not have been issued. Valuation - amortisation cost of freely supplied material - includibility - Held that - the demand of duty on non-amortisation cost of freely supplied material in the assessable value of the final product amounting to ₹ 17,291/- was paid along with interest of ₹ 3,113/- on 22/01/2007. CENVAT credit - returned goods - Held that - the credit availed on the finished goods returned under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been converted into scrap and ₹ 12,217/- was paid along with interest of ₹ 2,892/- on 22/01/2007. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner(Appeals) and imposition of penalty under CENVAT Credit Rules. Analysis: The appeal was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal and upholding the Order-in-Original. The case involved the appellant availing inadmissible credit on inputs and capital goods, discrepancies in credit availed, and the subsequent issuance of a show-cause notice demanding appropriation of amounts paid and penalty imposition under CENVAT Credit Rules. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and imposed a penalty under Section 11AC. The appellant contended that the impugned order was unsustainable in law, citing oversight in availing credit, non-utilization and reversal of credit, and issues related to non-amortization of cost of freely supplied material in the assessable value of final products. The appellant relied on various judicial precedents to support their submissions. The appellant argued that the penalty imposed was not justified as the credit on capital goods was reversed immediately upon detection of the oversight, and therefore, the show-cause notice should not have been issued as per Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant also contested the inclusion of the cost of freely supplied material in the assessable value of final products, citing conflicting views during the relevant period and previous decisions supporting their stance. Additionally, the appellant highlighted the reversal of credit on returned finished goods under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, conversion of goods into scrap, and payment of appropriate amounts along with interest. After considering submissions from both parties and reviewing the materials on record along with the cited judicial decisions, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal noted the appellant's immediate reversal of credit on capital goods upon notification of the oversight and the payment made for non-amortized cost of freely supplied material and returned finished goods. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law and allowed the appeal of the appellant, providing consequential relief as deemed necessary. The judgment was pronounced on 22/09/2017 by the Tribunal comprising Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member.
|
