2014 (2) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - credit of differential duty paid on the bulk lubricating oil manufactured and cleared from Turbhe unit to the Kukshet unit and credit was taken on the strength of invoices - Held that - As this Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for demand of duty against Unit No.1 of the appellant and the same is prejudice. Therefore, impugned proceedings at this stage are not warranted. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to follow the consequences of the matter pending against Unit No.1 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of CENVAT credit based on supplementary invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing oils at two units, appealed against the denial of CENVAT credit on differential duty paid on bulk lubricating oil cleared from one unit to another. The appellant raised supplementary invoices for the differential value to include various expenses in the excisable goods' value and paid duty under protest. The appellant took credit based on these invoices, which the Revenue denied. The appellant argued that a show-cause notice issued to Unit No.1 for demanding differential duty was adjudicated and confirmed, then remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision. The appellant requested a similar remand for the current proceedings, stating that the outcome of Unit No.1's case would determine their credit eligibility.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the matter involving Unit No.1 had been remanded for duty demand, causing prejudice to the current proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority to address the consequences of the ongoing matter related to Unit No.1. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.