9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TATION OF CHARGES annexed to the show-cause notice and these facts read as follows :- 1. During 1999-2000, they were sending the goods for job work purpose under challans issued under erstwhile Rule 57F(4) and debiting Cenvat credit (10% of value) against these transactions. Simultaneously, they were availing re-credit after receipt of these goods from the job workers. 2. A separate RG 23A Part II register was maintained to account debits and credits of Cenvat for job work transactions. This register was maintained separately by General Stores Section of the company in addition to the one RG 23A Part II register maintained by Excise cell of the company for accounting of credits of Cenvat on raw materials, Capital Goods and debits of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Excise Cell of the company. This position remained as it is till December, 2005. 6. During the month of January, 2006, the assessee has availed this credit of Rs. 8,44,292/- by way of transfer from RG 23A Part II register maintained at General stores section to RG 23A Part II register maintained at Excise Cell . In their reply, the appellants contested the proposal for recovery of Cenvat credit, interest thereon, and penalty. In adjudication of the dispute, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of duty against the party, demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Act and imposed a penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC of the Act. In an appeal filed by the party, the appellate authority set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellants during the material period could not be faulted. The ld. counsel also submits that the show-cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of limitation, without attributing to the noticee any intent to evade payment of duty and therefore, the extended period of limitation was not invokable. On the other hand, the ld. SDR submits that the amount of Rs. 8,44,292/- which remained unutilized in the job work-related RG 23A Part II was never mentioned in any of the RT 12 returns filed by the party during the period April, 2000 to December,2005. It was only in the return filed for January, 2006 that the party, for the first time, disclosed the above amount to the department. In the circumstances, according to the ld. SDR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... movement of inputs to job worker and that of processed inputs back to principal manufacturer [Rule 57F(4)] came to be replaced by Rule 57AC with effect from 1-4-2000. The new rule dispensed with the above debit/re-credit mechanism, thereby rendering the procedure so far followed by the appellants redundant for future. As on 31-3-2000, the appellants had unutilized credit of Rs. 3,43,977/- in their job work-related RG 23A Part II register. Even after the said date, they continued to receive Rule 57F(4) challans from their job workers, which related to inputs sent to them prior to 1-4-2000. Admittedly, the appellants, in respect of such challans also, proceeded in accordance with the letter and spirit of Rule 57F(4). In other words, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of the relevant Rule. No debit of any duty was ever made therein, nor any credit/re-credit of duty taken therein. The debits and credits made in that account were only of certain amounts which represented 10% of the value of the inputs vide Rule 57F(4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Side by side, the Excise section of the appellants was maintaining the regular RG 23A Part II account. There was total lack of co-ordination between the Excise section and the General Stores of the company. On 1-4-2000, the law changed and the company came to be aware of the same (a well established company like the appellants cannot be heard to say that they were ignorant of the change of law). In these circumstances, it is difficult to presu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, in any case, be allowed to be transferred to the regular RG 23A Part II register, in as much as, this amount does not partake of the character of duty. In so far as, the amount of Rs. 3,44,977/- is concerned, this amount also is of the same nature, inasmuch as, credit of this amount had been taken as a percentage of the value of the inputs. In the result, no part of the amount of credit in question (Rs. 8,44,292/-) is transferrable to the regular RG 23A Part II account. To take credit of this amount (which remained unutilized in the parallel account maintained by the General stores) in the regular RG 23A Part II would amount to transfer, which is not permissible in the facts of the case. I, therefore, do not agree with the prima facie vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
