2018 (7) TMI 610 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - capital goods sent to job-worker premises not brought back - Held that - The appellants after shifting the capital goods to their job worker in 2005 has issued a returnable delivery challan with central excise invoice and also paid duty. Thereafter in 2011, though invoices were issued showing that the capital goods were turned to the appellant s factory, they have not been actually returned - The only explanation given by the appellant is that the documents evidencing that the goods have been returned is not traceable. Such a flimsy explanation is not acceptable. Demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Improper availment of credit on capital goods without their actual return to the factory.

Analysis:
The case involves the appellants, engaged in manufacturing cast articles of iron and aluminum, who purchased three machineries in 1996-1997 and later cleared them to a job worker in 2005. The appellants had initially availed credit on these capital goods but reversed it upon removal to the job worker. Subsequently, in 2011, they again availed credit on these goods without their actual return to the factory. This led to a show cause notice for recovery of the credit amount along with interest and penalties.

Arguments:
The appellant's counsel argued that the issue arose due to an accounting error and requested condonation. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the findings, stating that the appellant wrongfully availed credit by issuing invoices claiming the return of goods to the factory in 2011, even though the goods were not actually returned. The Revenue contended that the demand, interest, and penalties imposed were justified.

Judgment:
After considering the submissions and records, it was found that the appellants failed to provide adequate evidence of the actual return of the capital goods to the factory. The explanation that documents proving the return were not traceable was deemed insufficient. The tribunal concluded that the demand for recovery of the credit was valid and warranted no interference. The appellant's inability to justify the wrongful credit availed led to the dismissal of the appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation and adherence to excise regulations regarding the availment of credit on capital goods, emphasizing the need for accurate record-keeping and compliance with procedural requirements to avoid penalties and demands for recovery.