Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 201 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - common inputs and input services used for taxable as well as exempt goods - non-maintenance of separate accounts in respect of clearances of 5 numbers of Aircraft Towing Tractors (on which exemption from payment of duty was available - contravention of Explanation-II to Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is not forthcoming from the records, as to whether the appellants have specifically raised any objection or filed any protest letter while making payment of such amount. However, it is only clear from the order that the amount so paid had already been ordered for appropriation. Since, the amount in question had been paid by the appellant, protest if any registered by the appellant vis-a-vis this particular aspect needs to be verified from the available records with the adjudicating authority or with the appellants. This assumes significance as the appellants having paid the amount are raising the issue of protest and the question of limitation before the Tribunal. It is not clear whether this issue was agitated at the time of adjudication of the matter. Moreover, it is also not coming forth with clarity as to the reason for payment of such amount by the appellants. The issue should travel back to the original authority for proper examination considering all the facts of the case and submissions of the appellants. Needless to say that the imposition of penalty should also be looked into afresh. Availment of Cenvat credit on inputs, which were exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods viz. Tatra Trucks and Tatra Engines - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has also recorded that against the liability of Rs.1,94,104/-, the appellants had accepted the demand to the extent of Rs.14,664/- and contended that the balance amount is under scrutiny for taking appropriate action in the matter within a short period. It has further been stated that the appellants have not come forward with any further details regarding the balance amount. Since, the appellants did not submit the proof regarding non-reversal of Cenvat credit for the balance amount, the matter cannot be decided at this end as to whether proceedings initiated for recovery of such amount and confirmation of the demand under Rule 14 ibid read with proviso to Section 11A(1) is in conformity with the statutory provisions - as the adjudicating authority is required to have a relook at the case on merits, it will not be fair to conclude the issue as far as penalties - matter on remand. Demand amounting to Rs.7,78,03,800/- confirmed in the impugned order - appellants had not maintained separate accounts and had not followed the procedures laid down under Rule 6(3)(i) ibid. - HELD THAT:- The matter should be looked into afresh by the original authority for a decision, whether the proportionate Cenvat credit had actually been reversed by the appellants or not. Demand of Rs.2,97,56,551/- on the appellants, assigning the reasons that the formula prescribed under Rule 6(3)(i) have not been complied with - HELD THAT:- Since, the appellants claimed that they had maintained separate records for use of input and input services in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods, such aspect regarding maintenance of records need to be examined by the original authority. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The original authority should also examine the aspect of limitation and to such extent, should rely upon the submissions made by the appellants, as recorded - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|