2010 (8) TMI 919 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fictitious invoices - Held that - Merely recording that the lower authority has decided the matter on particular points does not amount to application of mind by the Appellate Authority. Having said that the lower authority has decided the matter on the basis of certain materials it was necessary for the Lower Appellate Authority to ascertain by analysing those materials as to whether the findings arrived at by the lower authority were borne out from the records or not - the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing appeals against Adjudicating Authority's order on disallowance of Cenvat credit and imposition of penalties.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 33,36,625/- based on fictitious invoices issued by another company. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the disallowance, leading to the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed them. The challenge primarily focused on the failure of the lower Appellate Authority to consider the matter as required.

The impugned order was criticized for not addressing various grounds of challenge but only focusing on one, i.e., the failure to consider the matter adequately. The order highlighted the statements and lack of challenge to crucial facts by the appellants, emphasizing the binding nature of confessional statements unless obtained under duress. However, it was noted that the first Appellate Authority did not analyze the materials independently or consider the arguments raised by the appellants.

The Commissioner (Appeals) was faulted for not applying proper scrutiny in analyzing the evidence, particularly the alleged retraction of a statement after 5 months. The order lacked a comprehensive examination of the materials and findings of the lower authority, indicating a lack of due diligence in decision-making. Additionally, the order failed to disclose the points for consideration or provide adequate reasoning for the decision.

In conclusion, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable due to the lack of proper analysis and reasoning. The appeals were allowed, and the matters were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough review, considering all materials and arriving at appropriate findings based on a comprehensive analysis.