9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1011 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - both manufacture of taxable goods and provision of exempted service - proper procedure of Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 not followed - Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 - period 2012-13 to 2016-17 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - It is seen that the Range Superintendent vide its report dated 23/07/2019 at page number 395 of the appeal paper book had provided a detailed report as to the compliance of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 by the Appellant for the period covered in the SCN and it has been held that the Appellant was in compliance with the procedures laid down and that there has been excess reversal in the years 2014-15 to 2016-17 by the Appellant - the SCN was issued by the Audit Commissionerate to verify the contentions of the Appellant and accordingly the ld. Commissioner adjudicating the case should have taken into account the submissions of the Appellant from pre SCN stage and the report dated 23/07/2019. It is found from the records that the Appellant has complied with all the provisions of Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 and that there is no further reversal required for the period under dispute. It is also noted that for 2012-13 and 2013-14, the entire Cenvat credit of the Appellant stood reversed and adjudicated vide OIO dated 21/06/2016 which had attained finality as no appeal against the same had been preferred by the Department. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - Also for the period 2014-15, the department had issued a spot memo for Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 on 29/09/2015 wherein the SCN has been issued on 04/09/2018 much after the expiry of normal period of limitation. There is no ground on which the demand can be raised by invoking extended period of limitation as all the documents were at the disposal of the Department since 2015 itself and hence the entire demand also fails on the ground of limitation. The demand of Cenvat credit cannot be sustained both on merits and on limitation and is accordingly set aside. Since demand of Cenvat credit is set aside, penalty and interest are also not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against demand of Cenvat Credit for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17 confirmed by Ld. Commissioner. Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Rule 6 of CCR, 2004: - Appellant, engaged in biscuit manufacturing, faced demand for Cenvat Credit reversal under Rule 6 for trading of goods. - Appellant submitted required data and argued compliance with Rule 6. - Appellant contended that Cenvat credit for input services was already reversed for 2012-13 and 2013-14. - Appellant reversed an amount for 2014-15 and opted for proportionate reversal method for 2015-16 and 2016-17. - Range Superintendent's report confirmed compliance by the Appellant. - Appellant argued that the demand was unjustified and barred by limitation. 2. Adjudication Process and Authority's Decision: - Appellant's representative argued that the Ld. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand without considering submissions or the Range Superintendent's report. - The authority's order lacked discussion on the Appellant's contentions and the Range Superintendent's findings. - Appellate Tribunal found that the Appellant complied with Rule 6 and had already reversed Cenvat credit for certain periods. - Tribunal noted the department's awareness of the facts since 2015, questioning the invocation of extended limitation period. - Tribunal set aside the demand, penalty, and interest, finding them unsustainable both on merits and limitation grounds. 3. Conclusion: - The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per the law. - The demand for Cenvat credit for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17 was deemed not sustainable due to the Appellant's compliance with Rule 6 and the issue of limitation. - The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 21.12.2021, overturning the Ld. Commissioner's order-in-original dated 26th July 2019.
|
