Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1402 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - inputs - DA Cylinder - Bearings - CNC Package - Motor - Plate - Fixture assembly - Held that - the goods mentioned in Sl.No. iii to v above were removed on payment of duty and the finding of the learned Commissioner (AppeaIs) that the appellant has mentioned the invoice number on the photocopy of the Delivery Challan to mislead the Department is not supported by any evidence - the findings of learned Commissioner(AppeaIs) that the goods cleared vide Delivery Challan No.62 dt. 11/07/2013 were purchased by the appellant vide invoice No.635206 dt. 24/03/2012 is perverse as it is contrary to the material available on record. The CNC package cleared as such was purchased vide invoice No.62 dt. 10/07/2013 and the credit availed on such CNC package is 20, 863/- instead of 80, 084/- - the learned consultant by producing various copies of the purchase orders and invoices could link the same and has been able to prove that the goods were not removed as such but removed on payment of excise duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of CENVAT credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for certain inputs cleared without reversing credit availed. - Determination of whether removal of inputs for refurbishing work constitutes manufacture under Central Excise Act. - Discrepancies in invoices and delivery challans for CNC package and fixture components. - Allegation of misleading the Department by mentioning invoice numbers on delivery challans. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of CENVAT credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for inputs cleared without reversing the credit availed. The appellant was engaged in manufacturing and clearing excisable goods falling under specific chapters. An audit revealed that certain inputs were cleared without reversing the credit availed, leading to a show-cause notice and subsequent demand confirmation by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the decision, prompting the present appeal. The appellant argued that inputs were not removed as such but for refurbishing work, constituting manufacture under the Central Excise Act. They provided detailed explanations and documentary evidence regarding the specific circumstances of the removal of inputs for refurbishing work. The appellant also highlighted discrepancies in the show-cause notice regarding the CNC package and fixture components, demonstrating that the goods were not removed without payment of excise duty. The Assistant Commissioner defended the impugned order, but upon considering submissions and evidence from both parties, the Judicial Member found that the goods were removed on payment of duty. The Commissioner's findings regarding the alleged misleading actions of the appellant were deemed unsupported by evidence. Discrepancies in invoices and delivery challans were clarified, showing that the goods were not removed without payment of excise duty. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of CENVAT credit rejection, the classification of removal for refurbishing work, discrepancies in invoices and delivery challans, and the allegation of misleading actions. Through detailed analysis and consideration of evidence, the Judicial Member ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the previous decision.
|