Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 924 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of Cenvat credit in case of Common Cenvat credit - Manufacturing of dutiable as well as exempted articles - Retrospective amendment in Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Commissioner in de novo proceedings could not go into question already decided by tribunal - Safeguarding the interests of the Revenue does not mean that a duty demand must be confirmed ignoring the facts on record, pleas made by the assessee and the judgments of the Tribunal and the courts - Penalty on adjudicating authority / Commissioner for passing irresponsible adjudication orders. Held that:- We are of the view that this order of the Commissioner is not only without application of mind whatsoever but is also in contumacious disregard of the decision of the Tribunal. - in the de novo adjudication proceedings, which will be the third round of adjudication by the Commissioner, the Commissioner must requantify the cenvat credit to be reversed on proportionate basis for the period from 1.4.2008 to August, 2009 strictly as per the Tribunal's order i.e under Rule 6(3) (ii) read with the formula prescribed in Rule (3A) and in this regard, the Commissioner shall consider the Appellant's plea that they, during this period, have not taken the credit in proportion to the inputs/input services used in on in relation to manufacture of exempted final products and also the reports of Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Agra to Asstt. Commissioner (Adjudication) on this issue. In view of the Tribunal s final order dated 27.12.2012, the Commissioner cannot once again go into the question of applicability of the provisions of Rule 6(3)(ii).Since the Tribunal had set aside the penalty, in de novo proceedings, the Commissioner cannot decide to impose the penalty again. - Decided in favour of assessee. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Rahul Enterprises [1998 (12) TMI 577 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that Commissioner of Sales Tax, as quasi judicial authority, can impose adjournment cost, as while awarding costs acts as a deterrent to the frequent requests for adjournment, it also compensates the other party for inconvenience caused by adjournment. In our view this principle, though in the context of frequent requests for adjournment, will apply in a case where the commissioner defying the Tribunal's directing and ignoring the provisions of law passes an order which should never have been passed and thereby forcing the assessee to file appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, a cost of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is imposed on the Respondent Commissioner which is to be paid by the Commissioner who has adjudicated this matter.
|