2009 (4) TMI 647 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit.
2. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on various charges.
3. Denial of credit on specific items.
4. Lack of reasoning in the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
5. Remand for fresh decision.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit
The case involved a show-cause notice proposing the recovery of credit alleged to have been wrongly availed by the assessee. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise extended credit to a certain amount, disallowed credit on another amount, and imposed a penalty. Both the assessee and the Revenue appealed against this decision.

Issue 2: Admissibility of CENVAT credit on various charges
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that CENVAT credit was admissible on charges such as canteen charges, supervision charges, C&F charges, and insurance fees. However, he restricted the denial of credit on specific items, such as C&F service in relation to the import of raw sugar and advertisement costs related to a specific unit. The Commissioner did not address the claim of the assessee for credit on service used in a co-generation plant and certification fees.

Issue 3: Denial of credit on specific items
The assessee appealed against the confirmation of duty by denying credit on certain items, while the Revenue appealed against the order extending credit on other items like C&F charges and insurance fees.

Issue 4: Lack of reasoning in the Commissioner (Appeals) order
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide reasoning for concluding that credit was admissible on certain charges, which led to the order being considered a non-speaking order. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the case for a fresh decision to be made by the lower appellate authority.

Issue 5: Remand for fresh decision
The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand after granting the application for waiver of predeposit by the assessee. The case was remitted for a fresh decision by the lower appellate authority to pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee, without requiring any predeposit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a speaking order with proper reasoning.