2011 (10) TMI 67 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - general industrial waste - Revenue contended that credit was not pertaining to cenvatable capital goods on which cenvat credit appeared to be taken because they failed to produce any substantial documents/records, that may be in support of the contention of the appellant - documents have not been considered by the lower appellate authority and are required to be considered for the purpose of determining whether assessees are liable to pay the duty - set aside the impugned order - held that Fresh order shall be passed after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants - appeal is thus allowed by way of remand

Issues Involved:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and proceeding to decide the appeal without evidence filed by the appellants.
2. Failure to establish credit not pertaining to cenvatable capital goods.
3. Non-consideration of documents supporting the nature of waste cleared without duty payment.
4. Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case for fresh decision.
5. Allowing the appeal by way of remand.

Issue 1: Waiver of pre-deposit and proceeding to decide the appeal without evidence filed by the appellants:
The judges waived the pre-deposit of a specific amount along with interest and penalties. They proceeded to decide the appeal despite no evidence being filed by the appellants in support of their claim. The Department contended that no evidence was presented on the invoices related to the waste for which duty was demanded, asserting that the waste was packing material and general industrial waste for which credit was not taken.

Issue 2: Failure to establish credit not pertaining to cenvatable capital goods:
The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the appellant's failure to prove that the credit did not relate to cenvatable capital goods, as they did not produce substantial documents or records supporting their claim. The judges highlighted that the written submission and invoices provided by the appellants were not considered by the lower appellate authority. The case was remitted to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision based on the evidence presented by the appellants regarding the nature of the waste and the cenvat credit not taken.

Issue 3: Non-consideration of documents supporting the nature of waste cleared without duty payment:
The judges emphasized that the lower appellate authority did not consider the documents, including invoices, submitted by the appellants to establish that the waste cleared without duty payment was packing material waste and general industrial waste. They directed the adjudicating authority to consider these documents for determining the liability of the assessees to pay duty.

Issue 4: Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case for fresh decision:
In light of the evidence provided by the appellants, the judges set aside the impugned order and remitted the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. They instructed that a new order should be passed after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants, ensuring a fair consideration of the evidence presented.

Issue 5: Allowing the appeal by way of remand:
Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, indicating that the case would be reconsidered based on the fresh evidence and documents provided by the appellants. The decision highlighted the importance of a fair and thorough review of the evidence before reaching a final judgment.

← Previous Next →