2011 (4) TMI 1110 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - show-cause notice to submit that the said notice merely states that Cenvat credit relating to certain items was not admissible. But reply to the show-cause notice appearing in pages 50 to page 62 of the paper book filed demonstrate the justification of each and every items for admissibility Held that - authorities are required to quantify the expenses and service tax relating to each item of service if any availed and examined each such service taking the evidence available on record into considerations affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the original authority

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order claiming relief not in accordance with law, expenses incurred in relation to manufacturing, quantification of expenses and service tax, necessity of expenses for carrying out activity, burden of proof in Cenvat credit claim.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against an order claiming relief not in accordance with the law, arguing that the expenses incurred were related to manufacturing. The first appellate authority's order was challenged for not quantifying expenses and service tax, not examining each expense, and failing to show the integral connection of expenses to the activities. It was emphasized that the burden of proof in Cenvat credit claims requires strict construction, and liberal interpretation is not warranted. The case was remitted back to the original authority for a detailed adjudication, emphasizing the need to quantify expenses, examine each service, and provide a reasoned order.

The Ld. DR supported the Revenue's appeal, asserting that the expenses were indeed incurred in relation to manufacturing. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the first appellate authority had thoroughly examined the matter and justified the expenses' admissibility in response to the show-cause notice. The Ld. Counsel requested a fair opportunity for the appellants to argue all legal issues upon remittal to the original authority.

The Hon'ble Mr. D.N. Panda noted that neither of the authorities had quantified the expenses or service tax, nor had they provided a reasoned order demonstrating the indispensability and genuineness of the expenses for carrying out the activity. The strict construction required in Cenvat credit claims was emphasized, highlighting the need for the claimant to discharge the burden of proof. The authorities were directed to redo the adjudication, quantifying expenses, examining each service, and providing a detailed and reasoned order based on the evidence available.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the necessity for a detailed examination of expenses and service tax, emphasizing the burden of proof in Cenvat credit claims and the requirement for a strict construction approach. The case was remitted back to the original authority for a thorough adjudication, ensuring all legally tenable pleas are considered and a reasoned order is passed based on the evidence presented.