2018 (2) TMI 718 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturer-appellants win Cenvat credit case; Tribunal dismisses retrospective assessment, penalties

M/s Associated Machinery Corp. Ltd. And Shri Pawan Tyagi Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad

The Tribunal found in favor of the manufacturer-appellants in a case concerning the admissibility of Cenvat credit on individual raw-material consumption. ... CENVAT credit - input removed as such - Held that: - In the present case, Revenue could not establish that inputs as such were cleared by the manufacturer-appellants. Therefore, the said Show Cause Notice is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on individual raw-material consumption.2. Legality of the demand for excess raw-material consumption.3. Imposition of penalty and its reduction.4. Compliance with Central Excise Act and Rules.Analysis:Issue 1: Admissibility of Cenvat credit on individual raw-material consumptionThe manufacturer-appellants were availing Cenvat credit for the manufacture of various machines using inputs like M. S. Plate, M. S. Round/Bar, and others. The Central Excise officers directed the appellants to provide information on individual raw-material consumption for machines made between 2004-2007. A Show Cause Notice was issued questioning the excess consumption of raw-material and proposing recovery under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants contested, arguing that there are no provisions allowing retrospective assessment of raw-material consumption for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal found the proceedings not in line with the Central Excise Act and Rules, stating that Cenvat credit is to be availed on receipt of inputs and used in manufacturing, with duty payable if inputs are removed as such. As Revenue failed to prove such removal, the Show Cause Notice was deemed unsustainable.Issue 2: Legality of the demand for excess raw-material consumptionThe manufacturer-appellants were directed to deposit a significant amount based on alleged excess raw-material consumption, supported by a subsequent Show Cause Notice. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand, appropriated the amount, and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty, leading to an appeal by Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the proceedings lacked adherence to statutory provisions, emphasizing the necessity for inputs to be used in manufacturing and duty payable if cleared as such. As Revenue failed to establish the clearance of inputs, the Show Cause Notice and subsequent actions were deemed unsustainable, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.Issue 3: Imposition of penalty and its reductionThe Order-in-Original imposed penalties on the manufacturer-appellants and an additional penalty on the director of the company. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the mandatory penalty to 25% of the original amount. Revenue appealed against this reduction, arguing for the imposition of equal penalties. However, the Tribunal, after considering the contentions, found the entire proceedings flawed due to non-compliance with statutory provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the manufacturer-appellants' appeals by setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and dismissed Revenue's appeal.Issue 4: Compliance with Central Excise Act and RulesThe Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with the Central Excise Act and Rules in proceedings related to Cenvat credit and raw-material consumption. It highlighted the requirement for inputs to be used in manufacturing and the duty payable if inputs are cleared as such. As the Revenue failed to establish the clearance of inputs, the Tribunal deemed the Show Cause Notice and subsequent actions unsustainable, ultimately leading to the dismissal of Revenue's appeal and the allowance of the manufacturer-appellants' appeals.