2016 (12) TMI 1621 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - it was alleged that the final product manufactured by the respondent could not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2 (f) of the CEA, 1944 - Held that - There is an observation of the Adjudicating Authority on penalty that the respondent did not inform the department about the credit, but there is no malafide intention to evade the payment of Central Excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly observed that the finding of the Adjudicating Authority is contradictory and therefore, such adjudication order has no effect in the eye of law - matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding limitation and adjudication order
- Disallowance of Cenvat credit and interest
- Imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944
- Direction to file refund claim beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where the respondent's appeal was allowed on limitation, and the adjudication order was set aside. The respondent, a registered job worker, received galvanized CR Coils from Tata Steel and availed Cenvat credit based on challan for payment of duty. A Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that the final product manufactured by the respondent did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944, leading to a demand for recovery of Cenvat credit. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the credit but did not impose a penalty due to the absence of malafide intention. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the respondent's appeal on limitation.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the impugned order was contradictory and lacked proper application of mind. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand but did not provide a finding on limitation. The authority observed that the respondent did not inform the department about the credit, but there was no intention to evade duty payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the contradictions in the adjudication order and concluded that it had no legal effect. Both the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide comprehensive findings on both merit and limitation, leading to a remand of the matter for fresh consideration.

3. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The Authority was directed to consider the submissions of the appellant on both merit and limitation, ensuring that the appellant had adequate opportunity to present their case before a new order was issued. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a fair hearing and the need for a comprehensive decision addressing both merit and limitation issues. The cross objection was disposed of, and the matter was pronounced in the open court on 28.12.2016.