9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the period involved and the credit denied and the reasons for denial of credit is mentioned herein below in the tabular form. Appeal No. Period Credit demand (Rs) Penalty (Rs) Credit involved Reasons for denial E/918/09 June 2005 to May 2007 11,08,732/- 11,43,383/- 11,04,372/- Appellant unit had availed Cenvat credit on inputs based on invoices which were addressed to the other units of the Appellant. 4360/- Credit is availed on the basis of xerox copies of input invoice E/919/2009 June 2005 to May 2007 26,18,844/- 26,25,125/- 2,59,731/- Appellant unit had availed Cenvat credit on capital goods full 100% in the first year itself and hence irregular availment of credit & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices and capital goods in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The period involved in the different appeals, the amount involved and the reasons for denial of CENVAT credit in each appeal has been stated in the table. On an investigation by the preventive unit of the Central Excise Department relating to the appellants availing CENVAT credit, the department found that the appellant has availed irregular and inadmissible credit and on this allegation various show-cause notices were issued for different periods alleging contravention of various provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules on the grounds stated (supra). The appellant filed reply to various show-cause notices issued by the Department and after following the due process of law the Addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther submitted that merely because the appellant has paid the credit during investigation does not absolve the duty of the quasi-judicial authorities to examine the merits of the case. He further submitted that in the present case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para 13 of the impugned order has observed that since the appellant has admitted the allegations of ineligible availment of credit and has not contested the departments allegation by producing evidences and therefore he did not dwell the case on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the lower authorities have found easy way of confirming adjudicating levies ignoring the fact that the appellant had contested the case on merits from the stage of reply to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd Vs UOI [1999 (106)ELT 3(SC)] and in the case of Formica India Division Vs CCE [1995 (77)ELT 511 (SC)]. Learned counsel further submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) as well as adjudicating authority have gone by sheer technicalities ignoring the material facts namely that the appellant had received the inputs in question inside their factory, appellant is a multi-unit company, the inputs in question were duty-paid and the inputs were used in the appellants factory for manufacture of excisable goods which were ultimately exported. The Revenue did not contest these material facts in the show-cause notice. Learned counsel has further relied upon the decisions in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2)ELT 470(T) 2) Sehmbey Products Vs CCE [2007(215)ELT 156(T) 3) Vardhaman Acrylics Ltd Vs CCE & Cus [2006(204)ELT 321(T). Learned counsel further submitted that there is nothing wrong in taking CENVAT credit on capital goods 100% in the first year itself though as per rules only 50% of the same is to be taken in the first year and 50% credit in the subsequent year. But in this case, since he has availed 100% in the first year and has not utilized the same and for the subsequent year he is entitled to avail 50% therefore it will not result in to any loss to the Revenue. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following authorities. 1) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE[2005(187)ELT 241(Tri-Del)] 2) Bombay Paints Ltd Vs CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering the submissions of the appellant and also various decisions which has been relied upon by the appellant in support of his submission. Consequently I remand all the three cases to the original authority to pass denovo order after considering the submissions of the appellant. The original authority before deciding the appeals will afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and also opportunity to produce documents in support of their claim. Original Authority is expected to take into account the various decisions which have been discussed above while deciding the issue afresh. With these observations, the impugned orders are set aside and appeals allowed by way of remand.
( Order pronounced in Open Court on 15/03/2017 ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
