Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1352 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of Cenvat credit - demand is based only on the incorrect interpretation of the consumption figures as per the stock account maintained by the Appellant for all the three units or not - difference in consumption of raw materials as per ER 6 and as per the stock records maintained by the Appellant or not - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of recovery of Cenvat credit only on the ground that there are differences in consumption of inputs as per stock register and ER 6 filed by the Appellant. It is the case of the department that the said Appellant has tried to suppress the relevant facts of availment and utilization of irregular Cenvat credit in fraudulent manner by way of showing higher quantity of consumption of inputs for production of finished goods in their stock statement as compared to their ER 6 return during the said periods - it is seen that such allegation is only on the basis of the figure work of the department without production of any other evidences for demand of reversal of Cenvat credit such as any investigations of suppliers of raw materials, recording of input output ratio of the Appellants finished goods etc. The Appellant have produced a CA certificate showing the detailed reconciliation of each raw material type along with appeal paper book which goes to prove that the adjudicating authority has incorrectly understood the total matter at hand and proceeded to confirm the demand on irrelevant grounds. There are no investigation has been conducted by the department to prove the allegation of excess consumption apart from incorrect assumptions and calculations in the case and thus the recovery of Cenvat credit merely based on differences in figures of consumption cannot be made by the department - the demand has been raised for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16 in 2017. No explanation has been furthered by the Department in respect of such gross delay in proceeding with the matter. Therefore, the invocation of the extended period of limitation is not justified. The demand for recovery of Cenvat credit only on assumption and presumptions cannot be sustained is accordingly set aside. Since demand of recovery of Cenvat credit is set aside, penalty and interest are also not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|