2015 (3) TMI 1088 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rejects claim for Notification benefit due to lack of evidence

Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for Notification 23/2003 benefit as the applicant failed to prove goods were manufactured from indigenously ... Waiver of pre deposit - DTA Clearances - 100% EOU - Benefit of Notification 30/2004-CE - According to the applicant, they have manufactured the goods from indigenously procured material. - Held that:- Applicant has admitted that they have no record relating to production, like lot register or issuance of the material etc. so as to prove that the goods cleared under DTA were manufactured out of indigenously procured material. On the contrary, the Commissioner (AR) has produced the evidence in the form of applicant's own monthly statutory returns which show that for the period in question, yarn was imported and the same was used in the production. Under the circumstances, we do not see any reason to remand the case for the said purpose. - applicant has not been able to make any case in support of their contentions and that they have cleared the goods without payment of any duty as against the earlier period when they were clearing the goods on certain payment of duty (and dispute was relating to effective rates) and also that the applicant is having financial difficulties and is a sick unit, we direct the applicant to deposit an amount of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) within a period of six weeks - Partial stay granted. Issues:1. Eligibility for Notification 23/2003 benefit.2. Applicability of Notification 30/2004-CE to 100% EOUs.3. Duty rate calculation discrepancy.4. Proof of goods manufactured from indigenously procured material.5. Maintaining lot register or production documents.Eligibility for Notification 23/2003 benefit:The applicant, a 100% export-oriented unit, was issued show cause notices demanding duty for clearing goods to DTA units without payment. The Revenue contended that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions of Notification 23/2003 and that the goods were not eligible for Notification 30/2004-CE. The Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to prove that the goods were manufactured from indigenously procured material, as evidenced by monthly returns showing imported material usage. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's case for Notification 23/2003 benefit.Applicability of Notification 30/2004-CE to 100% EOUs:The Revenue argued that Notification 30/2004-CE was not applicable to 100% EOUs. The Tribunal noted the applicant's failure to satisfy the conditions of Notification 23/2003 and found no basis to consider the applicability of Notification 30/2004-CE. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the applicant's claim of manufacturing goods from indigenously procured material, leading to a dismissal of the applicant's contentions.Duty rate calculation discrepancy:The applicant highlighted a duty rate calculation error, suggesting a lower duty demand. However, the Tribunal noted that even with the claimed benefit, the total demand would still exceed Rs. 6 crores. The Tribunal considered the applicant's financial difficulties and directed a deposit of Rs. 2 crores within six weeks, with a stay on the recovery of the remaining duty, interest, and penalties upon compliance.Proof of goods manufactured from indigenously procured material:The applicant lacked records like lot registers or production documents to prove goods cleared to DTA were manufactured from indigenously procured material. In contrast, the Commissioner presented monthly statutory returns indicating imported material usage during the relevant period. This evidence led the Tribunal to reject the applicant's request for remand to establish the origin of manufactured goods.Maintaining lot register or production documents:The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining production records to substantiate claims of goods being manufactured from indigenously procured material. The absence of such documentation, coupled with evidence of imported material usage from monthly returns, weakened the applicant's case. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand and directed a partial deposit based on the applicant's financial situation.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's findings and directives based on the evidence and legal provisions.