2015 (3) TMI 1166 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of credit on MS Channels, MS Angles, MS Plates etc. after the amendment of definition of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Taking into consideration the judicial pronouncements in all fairness, the appeal should be remanded to the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the appeal is remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall hear the case afresh after examining the ratio laid down in Commissioner Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (2001 (7) TMI 118 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) and CCE, Belgaum Vs. Doodhaganga Krishna Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit (2012 (9) TMI 709 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ). It is needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall afford an opportunity to appellant of being heard before deciding the case. Appeal is allowed by remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application against Commissioner (Appeals) order-in-appeal.
2. Denial of credit on MS Channels, MS Angles, MS Plates post-amendment of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Issue 1: Stay Application
The appellant filed a stay application against the order-in-appeal dated 15.4.2004 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The confirmed demand of Rs. 42,59,842 was partially complied with by the appellant through a predeposit of Rs. 25 lakhs, as reflected in para-4 of the OIA. Considering this predeposit and the lower authority's examination of the denial of cenvat credit on various items, the main appeal was taken up with the consent of both parties.

Issue 2: Denial of Credit on MS Channels, MS Angles, MS Plates
The issue revolved around the denial of credit on MS Channels, MS Angles, MS Plates, etc., post the amendment of Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted that both sides had not considered relevant judicial decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts on similar issues. The Tribunal cited specific cases such as Commissioner Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd., CCE, Belgaum Vs. Doodhaganga Krishna Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, CCE, Bangalore Vs. SLR Steels Ltd., CCE, Mysore Vs. ICL Sugars Ltd., and CCE, Tiruchirappalli Vs. India Cements Ltd. The Tribunal, in the interest of fairness and legal precedence, decided to remand the appeal back to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority was directed to reexamine the case in light of the mentioned judgments and provide an opportunity for the appellant to present their case before passing a new order. The appeal was allowed by remand, and the stay application was disposed of.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding the stay application and the denial of credit on specific items under the Cenvat Credit Rules.