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 - 2017 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (5) TMI 332 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
- Availment of Cenvat credit on HR/CR coils without admissibility
- Less reversal of Cenvat credit on clearance of input
- Availment of Cenvat credit twice on the same invoice
- Fabrication/forgery of job work challans
- Confirmation of demand and penalty imposition
- Dismissal of appeal for failure to make pre-deposit
- Appeal before CESTAT and remand to Commissioner
- Submissions by appellant and Revenue
- Consideration of evidence regarding return of job work goods
- Need for remand to original adjudicating authority

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in steel tube manufacturing, faced issues related to the admissibility of Cenvat credit on HR/CR coils due to lack of record of goods movement and less reversal of credit on input clearance. Additionally, availing credit twice on the same invoice raised concerns. The main contention revolved around missing job work challans, with allegations of fabrication/forgery to avoid credit reversal, leading to a demand confirmation and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-payment, prompting the appellant to appeal before CESTAT, eventually resulting in a remand to the Commissioner.

During the proceedings, the appellant argued that despite missing challans, alternative documents proved goods return. The Revenue, however, emphasized the absence of challans as evidence of non-return, alleging fabrication. The Tribunal noted the narrow issue of goods return post job work for credit availed, emphasizing the lack of prescribed documents for movement. It highlighted the importance of tracking goods through various stages and maintaining accurate records per Cenvat Credit Rules.

The Tribunal found insufficient verification by lower authorities and emphasized the need for considering all evidence. It concluded that the matter warranted remand for a comprehensive review, urging the adjudicating authority to reassess the case with full documentation and verification. The Tribunal set aside the previous order, remanding the case for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with a chance for personal hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of thorough examination and verification in such cases.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates