Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Atul Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-Ii on 18 August, 2017
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/11816/2014-SM [Arising out of OIA No. SUR-EXCUS-002-APP-299-13-14 dated 27.03.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Surat-II] M/s Atul Ltd. Appellant Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-II Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Rakesh H. Shah (Sr. Manager) For Respondent: Sh. G. Jha, A.R. CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/decision:18.08.2017 Final Order No. A/ 11902 /2017 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides.
2. The short question involved in the present case is whether the appellant are required to reverse the credit/ discharge duty on clearance of waste and scrap of capital goods during the period 2008-2009. The Ld. Authorized representative for the appellant submits that since the capital goods were procured prior to 1994, hence no credit had been availed on those capital goods, accordingly, while clearing those capital goods as scrap, no duty was paid nor any credit was reversed in accordance, with Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, he has submitted that in any case, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked nor penalty equal to the amount of credit/ duty imposed is justifiable. He has also submitted that wherever capital goods have been procured after 1994, on becoming scrap, they used to clear the same on payment of appropriate duty. It is his contention that their action being bonafide, penalty imposed against them be set aside.
3. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that the appellant were maintaining four sets of invoices and intimated only two sets of invoices relating to home consumption and export of the manufactured goods. The scrap of capital goods cleared without payment of duty under MI.. Series of invoices, were never been disclosed to the department. Further, the Ld. AR has submitted that no evidence has been placed either before the adjudicating authority, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) or before this Tribunal in substantiating their claim that the capital goods were procured prior to 01.04.1994. It is his contention that being a Public Limited Company, it is not acceptable that they do not maintain asset neither keep records for earlier periods.
4. I find that undisputedly the appellant had cleared scrap of capital goods during the period 2008-2009, without reversing the credit on discharging duty on the same. Even though, the appellant had claimed before the authorities below that the capital goods were procured prior to 01.04.1994, however they could not place any evidence before the said authorities nor before this Tribunal also. Besides, it is also not in dispute that the said scrap were cleared against a separate series of invoices, the details of which had not been disclosed to the department. In these circumstances, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand with interest and penalty against the appellant. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) Neha 3 | Page E/11816/2014-SM