2013 (11) TMI 1338 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remits case for reconsideration due to discrepancies in credit reversal report, ensuring fair hearing for appellant.

The Tribunal remitted the case to the Commissioner for reconsideration in light of a report from the Range Superintendent, highlighting discrepancies ... Quantum of CENVAT Credit to be reversed – Inputs gone into the manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable goods - CA Certificated not supported by evidences - Held that:- The Commissioner has rejected the Chartered Accountant's certificate being not supported by evidence, whereas in the Superintendent's report the amount reversed by the appellant has been accepted and in the remarks column only an amount of Rs.7,944.81 as interest has been stated to be due - there is an apparent contradiction between the observation of the Ld. Commissioner and the report of the Jurisdictional Superintendent submitted by the appellant - Both sides agree that the issues require re-consideration - for the period from April, 2008 to December, 2010, the plea of the appellant was rejected by the Ld. Commissioner on the ground that they have not followed the laid down procedure under Rule 3(A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Here also from the Superintendent's report, whatever amount reversed for the relevant period by the appellant had been accepted and no objection was raised - this also needs scrutiny/examination by the Commissioner - it is a fit case to be remitted to the Commissioner to reconsider all the issues afresh in the light of the report of the range Superintendent referred to in the order – Appeal allowed by way of remand - Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues:Application for waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit and penalty under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages, sought waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit and penalty imposed for the period from May, 2002 to December, 2010. The appellant argued that they had reversed proportionate CENVAT Credit on most items, except furnace oil, used in the manufacture of exempted product 'Maaza.' They had submitted applications under Section 72/73 of Finance Act, 2010, informing the amount of proportionate credit involved and reversal of the same, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. However, the Commissioner rejected the certificates and confirmed the demand under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant contended that the Commissioner lacked the authority to reject their application and highlighted discrepancies in the rejection process. The appellant had also reversed a total credit and interest for the entire period, supported by a report from the Range Superintendent obtained through RTI Act, which contradicted the Commissioner's findings. The Revenue supported the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the lack of documentary evidence supporting the Chartered Accountant's certificate.The Tribunal found the main issue to be the quantum of CENVAT Credit reversed by the appellant on inputs used in manufacturing exempted product 'Maaza.' The appellant claimed they had been correctly reversing proportionate credit since May, 2002. The Tribunal noted the amendment to Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004 allowed for reversal of proportionate credit, and the appellant had filed applications supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Commissioner rejected these certificates, citing inaccuracies in determining the correct amount of credit to be reversed. The Tribunal also considered a report from the Range Superintendent, which supported the appellant's claims and indicated no amount due after reversal of credit. There was a discrepancy between the Commissioner's observations and the Superintendent's report. The Tribunal decided to remit the case to the Commissioner for reconsideration in light of the Superintendent's report, emphasizing that all issues should be reviewed afresh. The Tribunal did not express an opinion on any issues, ensuring the appellant receives a fair hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was disposed of.