2023 (11) TMI 620 - AT - Central Excise

Time Limitation - Cenvat entries were properly reflected in the ER-1 Returns and Stocks and Cenvat details were properly recorded in the RG 23 A Part 1 and Part II Records or not - suppression of facts or not - reversal of CENVAT Credit in respect of five Bills of Entry - demand alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT - Admittedly the Range Officials of Pansukra Unit have certified on 20/05/2010 and on 10/06/2011 that no input materials under the Bills of Entry in question were received by that unit nor any Cenvat Credit was taken by them. This combined with the fact that the Appellant unit at B. T. Road has mainlined full records towards receipt and issue of the materials would clarify that the Appellants had received the imported goods at their B. T. Road unit and were correct in taking the Cenvat Credit based on the Bills of Entry. The endorsement behind the Bills of Entry can be ignored as a unintended clerical error. Further it is seen that the Show Cause Notice has been issued after more than 3 years of Cenvat being taken by the Appellant. When Cenvat taken has been reflected in the ER 1 Return and non-taking of Cenvat at Pansukra unit has been verified and certified by the Range Superintendent, the Department cannot allege any suppression on the part of the Appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable even on account of limitation. Appeal filed by the Appellant allowed both on merits as well as on account of limitation.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the clearance of imported goods, Cenvat Credit, clerical errors in Bills of Entry, demand for reversal of credit, suppression of facts, and limitation period for issuing Show Cause Notice.

Details of the judgment:

1. Clearance of Imported Goods and Cenvat Credit:
The Appellants, manufacturers of Lead Oxides, imported goods for their factories at B. T. Road and Panskura. Due to a clerical error, consignments meant for B. T. Road factory were endorsed as being sent to the Panskura unit. The Department demanded reversal of Credit, alleging that consignments were cleared to Panskura but Cenvat Credit was taken at B. T. Road. The Appellant contended that all goods were received at B. T. Road, supported by verification reports and records. The Tribunal held that the Appellants had received goods at B. T. Road and were justified in taking Cenvat Credit, disregarding the clerical error.

2. Suppression of Facts and Limitation Period:
The Show Cause Notice was issued after more than 3 years of Cenvat being taken, invoking the proviso to Section 11A. The Appellant argued that there was no suppression as all entries were properly reflected, and non-taking of Cenvat at Panskura was verified. The Tribunal found that the Department could not allege suppression, as verified by the Range Superintendent. The judgment concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable on the grounds of limitation as well.

3. Decision:
The Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant both on merits and on account of limitation. The Appellant was deemed eligible for any consequential relief as per law. The judgment highlighted the importance of verifying facts to avoid unnecessary litigation and waste of time.

This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment, addressing each issue involved and the Tribunal's findings on the same.