Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1675 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - courier services availed for import of inputs and export of finished goods - rent paid on job workers premises - demand along with interest and penalties. Remand of matter by Commissioner(Appeals) - power of Commissioner(Appeals) to remand - Held that:- The Commissioner(Appeals) has allowed the appeals of the appellant on merits but still remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication which is not legally justified because the Revenue has not filed appeal against the impugned order on merit - further, the Commissioner has still the power of remand in exceptional circumstances where it is required for the purpose of quantification of the demand or where the original authority has passed orders without complying with the principles of natural justice. But the Commissioner(Appeals) should not have exercised the power of remand in the circumstances as prevailing in the present case - the power of remand exercised by the Commissioner(Appeals) is not legally sustainable in the present case. Courier services availed for import of inputs and export of finished goods - Held that:- The courier service availed by the appellant fall in the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 - credit allowed. Rent paid on job workers premises - Held that:- CENVAT Credit on rent paid on job worker premises has been allowed on the ground (a) Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 specifically provided for availment of CENVAT Credit by a manufacturer or producers of final products in respect of any, discharge of duties or taxes or cess paid on any input or input services used in the manufacture of intermediary products, by a job worker availing benefit of exemption specified in the N/N. 214/86-CE - Further, the rent paid is essential service directly in relation to the manufacture and once the Commissioner(Appeals) himself allowed it on merit, then thereafter remanding the case back to the original aurhority is not legally sustainable. The impugned order remanding the matter back to the original authority is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|