2011 (8) TMI 130 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Reversal of cenvat credit - Since this evidence had not been produced before original adjudicating authority, the evidence produced by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) were not considered on the ground that additional submissions can be entertained only after appellant satisfied the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant was prevented from submitting the same as provided in Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeal) Rules, 2001 - If the department was to make allegation that the party did not have any evidence to show that principal manufacturer had paid duty, the conclusion arrived at by the original adjudicating authority could not have been faulted with - It is settled law that while considering the stay petitions and waiver of pre-deposit, only prima facie case is considered and detailed examination of the facts and legal aspects are not done - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand to Commissioner (A)

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of cenvat credit for goods manufactured on job work basis.
2. Failure to produce evidence of principal manufacturer paying duty.
3. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) based on procedural grounds.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was found to be undertaking job work for other manufacturers without payment of duty on the goods manufactured. The issue revolved around the admissibility of cenvat credit for such goods. The impugned order confirmed a demand against the appellant, citing their ineligibility for cenvat credit on goods manufactured on a job work basis. The appellant argued that the principal manufacturer had paid duty on the final products, thus justifying their actions. The original adjudicating authority failed to consider this argument and proceeded to confirm the demand without allowing the appellant to produce evidence supporting their claim.

2. The appellant contended that they had informed the authorities that the principal manufacturer had paid duty on the final products. However, the original adjudicating authority did not provide an opportunity for the appellant to substantiate this claim with evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the appeal on procedural grounds, stating that the appellant had not produced evidence before the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's claim regarding duty payment by the principal manufacturer was crucial, and the failure to consider this aspect rendered the decision flawed.

3. The Tribunal found fault with the Commissioner (Appeals) for not recognizing that the appellant did not have an opportunity to produce evidence regarding duty payment by the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of an allegation in the show cause notice regarding duty payment relieved the appellant from the obligation to provide evidence preemptively. The original adjudicating authority's reliance on a stay order in a separate case rather than a final decision on the same issue was deemed illogical. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the evidence regarding duty payment by the principal manufacturer and emphasized the appellant's right to a fair opportunity to defend their case.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the need for authorities to consider all relevant evidence before making decisions on matters of duty payment and cenvat credit eligibility in job work scenarios. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's right to present evidence and defend their case adequately, ensuring a just and thorough examination of the facts before reaching a final decision.