Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (5) TMI 1402 - AT - Central Excise


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates