2014 (11) TMI 1182 - HC - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake/Recall of order - CENVAT credit - invoices raised by unknown/nonexisting firms - Held that - At the first instance when this Court is expected to examine only substantial question of law we refuse to undertake such an exercise. Instead we leave it to the Department to approach the Tribunal either for rectification or for recalling the order by pointing out relevant facts and the reason why the departmental representative might have been misled into giving such a concession. The concession on facts or law given by the legal representative of a party may not bind the party. However entertaining the dispute of the Department before us would deprive us of the analysis and opinion of the Tribunal on the comparison of facts - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against a judgment passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal based on the decision of the High Court regarding availment of Ineligible Cenvat Credit on nonexisting firm's invoices.

Analysis:
The Department filed appeals challenging a common judgment by the Tribunal, which favored the assessee based on the High Court's decision in a specific case. The Department sought to differentiate the facts of the cases from the precedent but the Tribunal noted that the issues were similar to the earlier judgment. The Tribunal highlighted that the matter concerned the availment of Cenvat Credit on invoices from nonexisting firms, as acknowledged by both sides. The Tribunal, based on the agreement and the High Court's ruling, ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Court acknowledged that if the Department had not conceded before the Tribunal, the facts could have been examined further. However, due to the Department's agreement with the High Court's decision, the Tribunal was constrained from delving deeper into the facts. The Court declined to undertake a detailed analysis, leaving it to the Department to seek clarification or rectification from the Tribunal. The Court recognized that concessions made by legal representatives may not bind the party, but decided to dispose of the appeals, granting the Department the liberty to address any discrepancies with the Tribunal for a more thorough examination of the facts.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the agreement between the Department and the earlier High Court judgment. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the Tribunal to assess the facts thoroughly and granted the Department the opportunity to seek clarification or rectification from the Tribunal. The appeals were disposed of, providing the Department with the liberty to address any concerns regarding the concession made during the proceedings.