TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 19-12-2014 sought clarification regarding amount of credit availed on coal removed as such, copies of invoices, copies of sales invoices etc. from the assessee. The Appellant submitted the details vide Letter dated 15-12-2015 submitted that appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and purchased coal as input and part of coal sometimes removed as such by reversing an amount equal to the credit availed. A statement showing purchase, sale, CVD passed etc. was prepared for the captioned period and the same was submitted along with copies of purchase bills. No further action was taken by the Revenue during the next 3 years. After 3 years, the department sought submission of 'As such sale' of coal in prescribed format for the period of May 2014 to June 2017 vide Letter dated C. No. CE-20/20/Misc/MSPL/JMR/2014/153 dated 07-12-2018, which was replied vide Reply dated 12-12-2018. The Revenue issued a SCN C. No. V(4)38/MSPL/Adj/ ASN-1/16/4019 dated 27-12-2018, alleging that the appellant with intent to earn more CENVAT Credit and utilize the same for payment of duty, had deliberately reversed the lesser amount of credit than was availed by them on coal removed as such and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i.e. FY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17, the Appellant has carried out the following transactions - a. Purchase of Imported Coal - 218,678 MT; b. Purchase of Domestic Coal - 20,492.17 MT; c. Removal of Coal as such - 18,209.89 MT 2.6 The Ld. AC vide the Order in Original has denied the claim of the Appellant that 92% of coal being procured locally due to non-submission of any evidence. In this regard, the appellant has enclosed herewith the following - (a) Ledger of 'Domestic Coal Purchase' from FY 201314 to FY 2016-17; (b) Ledger of 'Imported Coal Purchase' from FY 201314 to FY 2016-17; (c) Copy of Bill of Entries evidencing purchase of Imported Coal. 2.7 The summary of summary of purchase of coal, domestic visà-vis imported along with Sales details are as under : FY Domestic Import Sales Quantity Quantity Name Quantity Proof of clearance of Imported Coal 2013-14 7,093.30 51,387.74 Maa Amba Sponge Iron Ltd. 466.57 Purchase Order for Imported Coal Purchase has been provided Modern Coke Industries 66.38 Purchase Order for Imported Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Tribunal observed that the appellant had procured two grades of coal and had availed Cenvat credit on the higher-grade coal, the entire case of the Revenue was founded solely upon the ER-6 Returns for the period from November, 2011 to February, 2015. The Tribunal specifically recorded that no independent investigation or verification had been undertaken by the Department to establish that the coal on which Cenvat credit had been availed was, in fact, the same coal that had been cleared to third parties. No scrutiny of invoices, verification of the quality of coal supplied, or enquiry with the recipients was conducted to substantiate the allegation. The Hon'ble Tribunal further examined the ER-6 and corresponding ER-1 Returns and found that the figures disclosed therein were consistent with each other. In particular, for the month of January, 2013, the quantity of 1,522.16 MT reflected in the ER-6 Return was found to be identical to the quantity disclosed in the ER-1 Return and the figures contained in Annexure-A to the Show Cause Notice. In such circumstances, the Tribunal held that when the Revenue itself had relied upon the ER-6 Ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as taken cenvat credit and the same has not been properly reversed at the time of clearance of the same and thus they have contravened the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the CCR 2004. He reiterates the detailed findings of the lower authorities. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. Heard both the sides. Perused the appeal papers and documentary evidence produced before us. 5. Admittedly, the appellant uses the coal as his raw material in the manufacture of the finished goods sponge iron which is cleared on payment of Excise Duty. Therefore, their eligibility to take the cenvat credit on the coal is not in dispute. The dispute has arisen in respect of the coal cleared by them 'as such' for domestic consumption. The Cenvat Credit is available @1/2% in the case of imported coal and is @5/6% when procured domestically. The Revenue has treated all the coal clearances during the period under question to be of domestic procurement only, thereby the appellant was required to reverse cenvat credit @ 6%. On the other hand the appellant has claimed that they have cleared only the overseas coal, which would require reversal of 1% or 2%, which has been done by them a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een filed and ER-6 is the relied upon document there is no justification to allege any suppression on the part of the Appellant. 9. As already discussed in the above paragraphs, the Department has not brought in any corroborative evidence to the effect that the Appellant has cleared only Cenvat availed coal to the third parties. 10. Considering the above factual details, I find that the confirmed demand is not sustainable both on merits as well as on account of limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal stands allowed. 13. We find that to the factual details of the present case, the cited case law is squarely applicable. Accordingly, we set aside the confirmed demand both on account of merit as well as on account of time bar and allow the appeal. 14. The appellant would be eligible for consequential relief, if any, as per law. (operative part is pronounced in open court) ============= Document 1 M Model Coke Industries Manufacturer : Low Ash Metallurgical Coke C.S.T. No. 20161506552-101 TIN No. 20181506552 Date :- 20.03.2014 To, M/s. Maan Steel & Power Ltd. Works: Jamuria Industrial Estate, Mouza: Ikh....