Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 332 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - job-work - whether the job work goods on which the Cenvat credit was availed by the appellant was returned back from the job worker or otherwise? - Held that - merely on the basis that the green copy of the challan was not available it cannot be conclusively held that the job work goods have not been returned, when the goods are sent for job work, for the entire transaction of the job work, there are various stages of sending of the job work goods to the job worker, return of the goods from job workers, the payment of job work charges, the recording of the said transaction in the books of accounts of the appellant, after job work, removal of goods on payment of duty by the principal etc. - there can be so many other evidences by which it can be established about the issue of goods for job work and return thereof and subsequent use in the manufacture of final products and clearances of final products on payment of duty. However, all these aspects have not been properly verified by both the authorities below - matter remanded for reconsideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
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.
|