Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2025 (3) TMI 677 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of excise duty - clearance of zinc scrap - clearance of structural grills - reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs cleared as such - invocation of the extended period of limitation. Whether the demand for excise duty on the clearance of zinc scrap is justified? - HELD THAT - The appellant has purchased zinc ingots for the manufacture of their final product namely galvanized steel structural. These zinc ingots were used for the purpose of galvanization and the appellant has availed Cenvat credit on the zinc ingots. The appellant has cleared the final product namely galvanized steel structure on payment of duty. However they have not paid the Excise Duty on the zinc scarp emerged during the course of manufacture - the zinc scrap emerged during the course of manufacture are chargeable to Central Excise Duty. However it is observed that the appellant has cleared the zinc scrap on the delivery challan and as not discharged Central Excise Duty on the same. Accordingly the Lower Authorities have rightly confirmed the demand of Excise duty of Rs.8, 25, 921/- along with interest on the zinc scrap cleared without payment of duty. Whether the demand for excise duty on the clearance of structural grills is sustainable? - HELD THAT - The appellant has not raised any invoice for the clearance of steel structural to their civil division. The steel structural were cleared without payment of duty. They have issued non-returnable delivery challan and cleared the goods without payment of duty. Thus it is observed that the appellant is liable to pay duty on the steel structural cleared to their Fabrication Division - the appellant has cleared the steel structural grill to their own Fabrication Division under a delivery challan without payment of duty. Thus the appellant is liable to pay duty for the clearance to the structural grills made to their fabrication division - the Lower Authorities have rightly confirmed the demand of Rs.1, 68, 936/- on the clearance of steel structural. Whether the demand for reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs cleared as such is valid? - HELD THAT - The appellant has cleared inputs as such without reversal of the Cenvat credit availed on the same on 27.11.2009. The appellant has given the explanation that non-reversal has happened due to change in personnel due to the amalgamation of the Appellant s company with M/s.Crown Fabricators (P) Ltd. the explanation of the Appellant not acceptable. The appellant is liable to reverse the Cenvat credit availed on the inputs when the same are cleared as such . As the appellant has not reversed the credit availed on the inputs the Lower Authorities have righty confirmed the demand. Invocation of the extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The entire issue has come to the light only on the basis of the investigation conducted by the Headquarters preventive unit. The appellant has not disclosed these details in any of the returns filed by them. Thus the suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty has been established in this case and hence the extended period has been rightly invoked. Conclusion - i) The Lower Authorities have rightly confirmed the demand of Excise duty of Rs.8, 25, 921/- along with interest on the zinc scrap cleared without payment of duty. ii) The Lower Authorities have rightly confirmed the demand of Rs.1, 68, 936/- on the clearance of steel structural. iii) The appellant is liable to reverse the Cenvat credit availed on the inputs when the same are cleared as such . As the appellant has not reversed the credit availed on the inputs the Lower Authorities have righty confirmed the demand. iv) The suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty has been established in this case and hence the extended period has been rightly invoked. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.
|