2011 (8) TMI 1056 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of penalty and interest - CENVAT credit on material used of construction of office was the issue - The Revenue did not prefer any appeal against the said finding of waiver - Held that - When once the Revenue has accepted the order passed by the adjudicating authority and not chosen to prefer any appeal before the CESTAT, it is not open for the Revenue, now to contend that the order passed by the appellate authority is erroneous - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against CESTAT Final Order No. 161/2008
2. Eligibility of the assessee to use Cenvat Credit for material used in construction of office
3. Revenue's failure to appeal against the appellate authority's decision on penalty and interest

Analysis:
1. The High Court, in its judgment, dismissed the appeal (C.E.A No. 61 of 2008) filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum against the CESTAT Final Order No. 161/2008. The Court highlighted that the Revenue did not appeal against the appellate authority's decision that set aside the penalty and interest. It was noted that the assessee had filed the appeal before CESTAT, challenging the findings that denied the assessee's entitlement to avail Cenvat credit for construction material used in the office. The Court emphasized that since the Revenue had accepted the adjudicating authority's order and did not appeal, it could not now argue the appellate authority's decision was incorrect.

2. The judgment further clarified that the appeal was solely filed by the assessee regarding the eligibility to use Cenvat Credit, and the CESTAT's decision was based on this specific issue. The Court pointed out that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memo were not relevant to this case, given the admitted facts that the Revenue did not challenge the penalty and interest aspect. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit based on the circumstances presented.

3. Consequently, the High Court held that the appeal was without merits and proceeded to dismiss it. The judges, V.G. Sabhahit and B. Manohar, JJ., passed the order to dismiss the appeal, affirming the decision of the CESTAT regarding the assessee's eligibility for Cenvat Credit. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural adherence and the impact of not appealing against specific aspects of a decision, as seen in this case where the Revenue's failure to challenge the penalty and interest ruling limited their scope for further contentions.