2011 (6) TMI 105 - AT - Central Excise

Limitation - Demand confirmed against the appellants by denying them the benefit of modvat credit availed in respect of goods procured from 100%EOU and in terms of the formula prescribed in terms of the Notification No. 23/2003 - Since, that the issue i.e. as to whether CVD referred under Rule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 includes only additional duty u/s 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or the same also include 4% additional duty levied under Section 3(5), is no more res-integra and stands settled by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Venkateshwara Precision Components vs. CCE, Chennai (2010 -TMI - 201972 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) - As the matter is prima-facie decided in favour of the appellants by the referred decision of the Tribunal - It fit to remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the law declared in the referred judgment - Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Issues:
1. Denial of modvat credit availed in respect of goods procured from 100% EOU.
2. Contesting demand based on limitation grounds.
3. Interpretation of CVD under Rule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Permission to raise grounds on merits based on Tribunal decision.
5. Remand for fresh decision in light of Tribunal judgment.

Analysis:

1. The judgment concerns the denial of modvat credit to the appellants for goods procured from a 100% EOU. The demand was confirmed due to the denial of this benefit, as per Notification No. 23/2003. The demand was issued through a show cause notice, and the appellants did not contest it on merits before the Commissioner (Appeal), focusing instead on the limitation aspect.

2. The main contention raised by the appellants was regarding the limitation of the demand. Despite the Commissioner (Appeal) rejecting their limitation grounds, the appellants sought to challenge the impugned order in its entirety before the Tribunal. They maintained that the issue of whether CVD under Rule 3(7) includes additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, had been settled in their favor by a previous Tribunal decision.

3. The advocate for the appellants argued that they should be allowed to raise grounds on merits, as they had also prayed for the authority to add, alter, delete, or modify submissions. The advocate emphasized that there was no suppression or misstatement with malicious intent on the part of the appellants. The Tribunal acknowledged the grounds raised by the appellants and permitted them to rely on the previous decision in their favor.

4. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments, decided that in the interest of justice, the appellants should be allowed to rely on the Tribunal decision that favored them. Since the decision was not considered by the lower authorities, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision based on the law declared in the previous Tribunal judgment. The question of limitation was left open for consideration during the remand proceedings.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the stay petition and appeal on the terms of remanding the matter for a fresh decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering relevant legal precedents and ensuring that appellants have the opportunity to raise grounds on merits, especially when supported by favorable Tribunal decisions.

← Previous Next →