Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (10) TMI 349 - AT - Central Excise


Issues involved:
1. Availing modvat credit under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules for export clearances.
2. Allegation of inadmissible credit and penalty imposition by the Department.
3. Challenge against Order-In-Original before Commissioner (Appeal).
4. Interpretation of Rule 57H regarding transitional provisions for availing credit.
5. Requirement of maintaining separate accounts for inputs under Rule 57H.
6. Verification of input credit with duty paying documents and invoices.
7. Denial of credit for inputs not falling under the category of immediate receipt before the declaration.

Analysis:
1. The case involves M/s Talbaru Forgings appealing against an Order-In-Appeal regarding the availing of modvat credit under Rule 57H for export clearances. The Department alleged that the appellants wrongly claimed credit without maintaining separate accounts for inputs, leading to a Show Cause Notice for recovery, interest, and penalty. The Assistant Commissioner's Order-In-Original was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeal), who rejected the appeal, prompting the current appeal.

2. The Tribunal examined Rule 57H, which deals with transitional provisions for availing credit. The rule requires a manufacturer to file a declaration with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to claim credit on inputs received before obtaining acknowledgment of the declaration. The appellants claimed credit for inputs in stock on the date of filing the declaration. The Tribunal noted that Rule 57H does not mandate the maintenance of accounts but focuses on verifying physically existing stock at the time of the declaration.

3. The Tribunal addressed the ambiguity of the term "immediately before" in Rule 57H, emphasizing that inputs received before October, the filing date of the declaration, would not qualify for credit under the rule. The requirement for verifiable credit with duty paying documents and invoices was stressed, with the Commissioner (Appeal) finding discrepancies in the appellants' records regarding the nature of inputs claimed for credit under Rule 57H.

4. The Commissioner (Appeal) also upheld the denial of credit amounting to Rs. 33,197, as those inputs did not fall under the category of immediate receipt before the filing of the declaration. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it based on the non-fulfillment of Rule 57H requirements and discrepancies in maintaining records for availing modvat credit for export clearances.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal interpretations and findings of the Tribunal regarding the issues raised in the judgment.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates