9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is regards.
From perusal of the said documents it is evident that appellant has taken CENVAT credit against the documents in respect of which he claims that no credit was taken. The submission of the appellant in this respect is not supported by the said documents and is totally perverse, and appellant has failed to provide any explanation for the same.
Conclusion - The requirement for maintaining separate records under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 affirmed. The application of Rule 6(3)(i) for non-compliance upheld, resulting in a demand for payment based on the value of exempted goods.
There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued to the appellant and the demand so raised was confirmed by order in original dated 29.03.2016 which was also upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) by order in appeal dated 25.09.2017. 2.5 On appeal by the appellant, Hon'ble CESTAT vide its F.O. No. A/70897/2018(SM)[BR] dated 15.5.2018 remanded back the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. 2.6 In terms of the order of CESTAT, matter was taken up for re-adjudication and adjudicating authority vide his order in original referred in para 1, confirmed the demand along with interest and penalties. 2.7 Aggrieved appellant filed the appeal before Firs Appellate authority which has been dismissed as per the impugned order. 2.8 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 I have heard Shri S D Gaur, Advocate for the appellant, Shri Manish Raj and Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned counsel submitted that: ⮚ That the impugned order is not proper, reasonable and justified ⮚ That the appellant maintained separate record for input used indutiable as well as exempted goods. For input used in dutiable goods record was mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments received for input to be used in manufacture of exempted goods. The documents/ list submitted for such input is not accepted as proper amount for the input received and used in the manufacture of exempted goods. ⮚ there is no evidence to show that appellant availed and used credit of duty on input used in the manufacture of exempted goods. In the absence of such evidence the contention of audit, original authority and appellant authority that appellant used credit of input used in manufacture of exempted goods is not proper. Therefore demand of duty as made in order is not justified and legal. The fact is that appellant maintained separate account for the input received and used in the manufacture of exempted goods on which no credit was taken. ⮚ the amount of Rs. 36,717/- was deposited on account of credit taken of service tax in respect of proportionate services of security availed in this respect of exempted products. The amount paid is not related to any input credit on input used in exempted goods ⮚ demand of Rs. 30,452/- it is submitted that it has no relation with the rebate claim received by the appellant. The fact is that purchaser of No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n writing to the Superintendent of Central Excise giving the following particulars, namely:- (i) name, address and registration No. of the manufacturer of goods or provider of output service; (ii) date from which the option under this clause is exercised or proposed to be exercised; (iii) description of dutiable goods or taxable services; (iv) description of exempted goods or exempted services; (v) CENVAT Credit of inputs and input services lying in balance as on the date of exercising the option under this condition 3.9 And, they did not pay the amount of CENVAT Credit attributable to inputs used for provision of exempted goods as required under the provisions of Rule 6(3A.) (b), (d) and (e) of CENVAT Credit Rule, then they were required to follow the provisions of rule 6 (3) (i) of erstwhile CENVAT Credit rule 2004 3.10. I find that the party vide their reply vide letter dated 15.12.2014 as referred in the previous issued OIO dated 29.03.16, have submitted that they were maintaining separate account of the raw material used in exempted goods as well as dutiable goods. The party had submitted that no CENVAT Credit was availed by them on raw material which was used in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot produce any essential/ required proof to the facts that their contention is correct except some copy of purchase and sale details and on examination of the said documents, I find that the said copy of purchase and sale details are not suffice to establish the facts, they were maintaining separate account of the raw material used in exempted goods as well as dutiable goods. Moreover, I find that the party have also emphasized on the agreement with M/s Luxor International Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi and have stated that "As per section T New Delhi and have stated that "As per section 1 of the agreement the noticee has been permitted to source directly component and raw material from such party, as are approved by Ms. Luxor International Pvt. Ltd. as per specification provided by the company. List of purchase of raw material from Ms Luxor from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 are enclosed herewith. The sale analysis for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 are also enclosed herewith. List of ball pen part sold to Ms. Luxor during the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 and List of ball pen sold to Ms. Luxor during 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e u/r 6(3)(i) of CCR 2004 Amt to be paid @5% or 6% (in Rs) 1 2010-11 10381670 5% 519084 2 2011-12 7008871 5% 350444 3 2012-13 3707881 6% 222473 4 2013-14 11553972 6% 693238 Total 32652394 1785239 3.11 I further find that the party have reimbursed Rs.1,49,796/- to their client towards printing charges and sticker pasting charges. These amounts were reimbursed to client by way of credit notes issued during 2013-14. In other words the amount passed on by the party to their buyer by way of Credit notes is a reimbursement of expenses incurred by the buyer, subsequent to sale of goods and is a part of transaction value, to be determined under Section 4 of CEA 1944, and incidentally has escaped proper levy of Central Excise duty, hence is required to be recovered The party was required to pay duty on this value which comes to Rs.3,086/- which is liable to be recovered from them. 3.12 The party contested the views taken by the audit vide letter dated 15.12.2014 stating that_ against the job work which needed to be done by them, a part of work was done by M/s. Luxor International Ltd on behalf of them on the sold goods which was manufactured by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ravened the provisions of the Cenvat Credits Rules, 2004 with intent to avail inadmissible credit. Therefore extended period as provided under proviso to Section 11A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been rightly invoked for demanding the said inadmissible Cenvat Credit of Central Excise Duty taken by them along with interest under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11 A and Section 11 AB/ 11AA of the Central Excise, Act, 1944. 3.16 On the issue of demand of interest, I find that this issue stands settled as per many case law on the subject. It has been held time and again that the payment of interest becomes due immediately, if the due payment of duty is not made by the specified date. Reliance is placed nere on the cases of CEAT Vs CCE Mumbai-III- 2012(275) ELI 433 (Tri, Mumbai), CCE Bangalore-III Vs Presscom Products-2011 (268) ELT 344 (Karnataka) and Neptune Spin Fab Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmadabad 2009 (241) ELT 467 (Tri Ahmd.) Once the issue about the correctness of the demand notice is concluded as above, the payment of interest thereon in terms of Section 11AA of Central excise Act 1944 respectively becomes inevitable. 3.17 I f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase and sale details are not suffice the purpose to establish the facts that they were maintaining separate accounts of the raw material used in the exempted goods as well as dutiable goods. In the impugned OIO it is concluded by the adjudicating authority that mere submission of list of purchase/sale of goods is not enough until and unless appellant submits essential documents such as copy of ledgers of Balance Sheets, invoices and copy of other financial records in support of their claim., 7. Now, turning my attention to the appeal memo, I find that in the appeal memo also appellant has provided a list of incoming purchases, on which according to appellant, cenvat credit has not been claimed by them. They have also submitted copy of an agreement made by them with M/s Luxor International Pvt. Limited, New Delhi which requires the appellant to source directly component and raw materials from such party, as are approved by M/s Luxor International Pvt. Limited, New Delhi. 8. In this regard, after assuming claim of the appellant that they had not availed cenvat credit on the said list of raw material as correct, question before me to adjudicate is as to whether the said list c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared 8 utilized and for this inventory was maintained separately away from the inputs which have been used in dutiable goods. The appellant has miserably failed to do so. 10. Further, As far as reliance of the appellant on the agreement made by them with M/s Luxor International and their contention that the show cause notice fails to mention what are the goods/raw material/ components used in common in manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods are concerned. I find that the raising of these issues at this stage are irrelevant because as per the CESTAT F.O., the question to be decided now is that whether the appellant were maintaining separate records or not in terms of Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004 and answer to this question has already been given in negative supra. I also find that the appellant at the same time is taking two mutually antagonistic approaches in as much as on the one hand they are making averments that the department has not specified the common inputs/ services being used and in the same breath it is submitted by them that they were maintaining separate records in respect of dutiable and exempted goods Accordingly, I find no merits in the argument put forth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.10.2024, the counsel for appellant failed to provide any explanation and sought adjournment. The order sheet of 03.10.2024 is reproduced below: "ORDER Counsel for the Appellant requesting for an adjournment for what so ever reasons cannot be considered at this moment of time for the reason that matter was heard on 12.09.2024 and specific query was made and it was made clear that adverse inference can be drawn taking note of the submissions made today. 2. Heard both sides. Order Reserved. Both the sides are at liberty to file written submissions vis-à-vis today's date of hearing within a week from today. In case no submissions are received in a week's time, matter will be decided on the basis of available records. 4.6 Appellant didn't filed any submissions even after being allowed time to explain the discrepancies noted during the hearing on 12.09.2023. Thus I have reason to conclude that the appellant has no submission to make in this regards. 4.7 The fact that appellant was not maintaining separate records of the inputs used in manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods is well established by the records. The scanned copy of the documents verified on sample basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
