2011 (10) TMI 220 - AT - Central Excise

Facility of re-credit of amount paid through PLA - Notification No. No.39/2001 - AO denied Credit only on the ground that the appellant has not followed the procedure laid down. Case remanded back to original adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition dismissal due to lack of executable order requiring stay.
2. Forfeiture of re-credit facility by lower authorities.
3. Lack of Show Cause Notice and hearing by adjudicating authority.
4. Submission for fresh hearing by appellant.
5. Failure to utilize chance for producing evidence.
6. Appreciation of factual matrix regarding machinery installation and quantity manufactured.
7. Applicability of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat.
8. Remand of the matter back to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision.

Analysis:

1. The Stay Petition was dismissed as no executable order requiring stay was found. The appeal itself was taken up for disposal due to its narrow compass, as perusal of records revealed the forfeiture of re-credit facility by the lower authorities under Notification No. 39/2001. The appellant's grievance of lack of Show Cause Notice and hearing by the adjudicating authority was noted, despite the admission that the first appellate authority had provided a hearing, albeit without relevant case-law being presented.

2. The appellant expressed readiness to return to the adjudicating authority for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need for appreciation of relevant facts. The Revenue submitted that the chance given to the appellant for producing evidence was not utilized, highlighting the issue of factual matrix regarding the installation of new machinery and the quantity manufactured from old and new machinery.

3. After careful consideration, it was observed that the main issue pertained to the appreciation of the factual matrix and the applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to follow the principles of natural justice.

4. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the matter being sent back to the adjudicating authority for a reevaluation of the issues at hand. The judgment concluded with the decision to remand the case for a fresh decision, ensuring that all options remained open for further consideration.