Case Law Details
Medisray Laboratories P. Ltd. Vs CCGST (CESTAT Mumbai)
Coming to the statutory audit procedure, the purpose of audit, as available in the Manual published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in respect of EA audit and CERA audit under Chapter 17 is that the idea behind such conduct of verification is to reasonably ensure that no amount, which under the central excise law is chargeable as duty, escapes taxation and the process of verification is always carried out in the presence of assessee and in the process, the auditor is required to discuss the matter with the assessee and advice him to follow correct procedure in future. It is also referred in the said manual that after such submission of audit report, in cases where the disputed amount have not already been paid by the assessee at the spot, demand notices are issued by the department for their recoveries. EA 2000 audit was therefore held to be participative audit. Likewise CERA audit is conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in respect of receipt and expenditure of the Government of India. It also discharges revenue audit which covers central excise, service tax and customs laws during which time the assesses were examined by CERA audit party to point out the deficiencies, leakage of revenue and non recoveries of dues by the Central Excise Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that only because audit party had found some credit availed has inadmissible, suppression of fact is made out.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT
None payment of duty @ 6%/7% of the trading value for non-maintenance of separate dutiable and exempted accounts to avail CENVAT credit is the subject matter of this appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant’s case is that it is engaged in the manufacturing of dutiable goods namely “PP Medicines” and during the Audit it is also observed that it has carried out sale of raw-materials by selling the same to M/s Cipla Ltd., Mumbai, on whose behalf it also undertakes manufacturing process on job work basis. As per Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, if separate account for manufacturing on such trading by way of sale is not maintained, the assessee is liable to pay 6%/7% of the value of exempted goods/services besides payment under sub-rule 3A of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Appellant was put to notice on the basis of such Audit report which was objected by it but ultimately resulted in imposition of such duty liability including interest and penalty covering extended period on the ground of suppression of facts etc.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
