2011 (3) TMI 1094 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty - Cenvat credit availed cenvat in respect of the input services based upon the Abstracts given by the service suppliers - Principles of natural justice denied - Proceedings were initiated against the appellants based upon the audit objection - during the course of adjudication before the original adjudicating authority, the appellants produced the requisite invoices on the basis of which credit was availed - Held that - The appellant having produced the invoices, on the basis of which modvat credit was availed, it was the duty of the adjudicating authority to verify and examine the appellant s claim. Merely because such invoices could not be produced earlier to the adjudicating authority, is no ground to reject the same - remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision after verifying and examining the invoices produced by the appellants.

Summary

Issues:
Proceedings based on audit objection regarding availing cenvat credit on input services without producing invoices before audit or investigation. Denial of credit by original adjudicating authority. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) unsuccessful. Adjudicating authority's refusal to consider invoices produced during adjudication.

Analysis:
The case involved proceedings initiated against the appellants for availing cenvat credit on input services based on audit objections without producing invoices initially. The original adjudicating authority denied the credit, stating that the invoices were produced after the audit and investigation, considering it an afterthought to prove eligibility. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

The Hon'ble Member (Judicial) found the reasoning of the adjudicating authority to be against the principles of natural justice. The advocate for the appellants clarified that the audit objection was initially raised but a subsequent show cause notice specifically on this ground led them to believe it was dropped. The invoices were not available during the audit as they were at the head office. The production during adjudication aimed to substantiate the credit claim. The adjudicating authority was criticized for not verifying and examining the invoices, as required.

Agreeing with the advocate's arguments, the Member (Judicial) emphasized that the duty of the adjudicating authority was to verify and examine the invoices provided by the appellants. Merely due to the delay in producing the invoices earlier, the rejection was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after proper verification and examination of the invoices. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.