2009 (3) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Accountal of inputs credit - We are satisfied that when the issue was framed on the basis of the balance sheet figures, that needs to be tested since those figures were considered to be basis of charge while the statutory record under Central Excise Act, 1944 are the full proof figures. -. The balance sheet is totally a foreign material which may support the case of Revenue, if balance sheet provides credence to Revenue and that remains uncontradicted - Once he finds that the figures of the balance sheet calls for testing, he should not hesitate to make reconciliation when the assessee has brought out a clear evidence that its RG-23A Part-I record is not challenged by Revenue Further to deny the right of credit, burden of proof lies on Revenue with cogent evidence led to show that the inputs were only gathered for mere paper credit but have not undergone consumption further it is held that without element of law, there cannot be levy of peanlty

Issues:
1. Discrepancies in balance sheet figures and RG-23A records.
2. Allegations of covering up input shortages.
3. Lack of physical verification of stock.
4. Reconciliation of alleged discrepancies.
5. Denial of Modvat credit without cogent evidence.
6. Penalty imposition without evidence of deliberate breach.
7. Examination of evidence and charges by Revenue.
8. Legal basis for charges based on balance sheet figures.
9. Burden of proof on Revenue for denial of Cenvat credit.
10. Lack of evidence for suppression or clandestine activities.
11. Need for reconciliation and examination of discrepancy basis.
12. Compliance with proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
13. Adjudication authority's role in reviewing the case.
14. Opportunity for the appellant to argue time-bar and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The judgment primarily deals with discrepancies between the balance sheet figures and RG-23A records under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the records forming the basis for tax administration were accurate and faultless, and any charges based on unknown documents should not be upheld.

2. The appellant contested allegations of covering up input shortages, emphasizing the lack of physical verification by Revenue. They argued that without concrete evidence of discrepancies or clandestine activities, denial of Modvat credit was unjustified.

3. The counsel highlighted the appellant's efforts to reconcile alleged discrepancies and the absence of additional records to prove any wrongdoing. They stressed the importance of relying on statutory records and avoiding piecemeal evidence in legal proceedings.

4. Regarding penalties, the appellant argued against wilful breach of law or manipulation, asserting that returns were regularly filed without evidence to support penalization. The counsel specifically addressed individual penalties, seeking exoneration for those not directly involved in any offense.

5. The Revenue defended its position by claiming a careful analysis of charges in the show cause notice, pointing out discrepancies in the appellant's actions regarding input adjustments and blending records. They argued that the appellant's conduct raised suspicions justifying the charges.

6. The Tribunal, after extensive hearings, emphasized the need for concrete evidence to support charges, especially concerning the denial of Cenvat credit. They highlighted the burden of proof on Revenue and the lack of evidence supporting suppression or clandestine activities by the appellant.

7. The judgment concluded by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing, adherence to legal provisions, and a reasoned decision based on the show cause notice's foundation. The authority was instructed to consider time-bar issues and avoid penalties without legal basis.

← Previous Next →