2014 (2) TMI 1053 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of cenvat credit - Availment of cenvat credit distributed by head office as inputs service distributor - Held that - Adjudication order seems to have been passed in a hurry without considering the submissions made by the appellants herein in their letter dated 18.01.13. Since we are of the view that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, we allow the stay petitions filed and take up the appeals themselves for disposal - appellant herein had filed a written submission on 18.01.13 raising various grounds in their defence on merits as well as on limitation. Obviously, the impugned order which was passed on 27.12.12 could not have considered these written submission given by the appellants in their defence. To that extent, we are of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable as it has been crossed in a violation of principles of natural justice - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues: Denial of cenvat credit held to be ineligible due to distribution by head office, violation of principles of natural justice in passing the adjudication order.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issue involved pertains to the denial of cenvat credit held to be ineligible to the appellant due to the distribution by their head office as an inputs service distributor. The appellant had availed cenvat credit distributed by their head office, which included ineligible cenvat credit attributable to services rendered by an advertising agency for exempted goods manufactured at one of their units. The appellant raised concerns regarding the adjudication process, highlighting that the impugned order was passed hastily without considering their submissions made during a personal hearing and in a subsequent written submission. The appellant's head office, registered as an ISD, also faced a show cause notice for similar issues, leading to a demand confirmation against them. The appellant had already reversed a significant amount under protest within the limitation period during the proceedings before the lower authorities.

The Departmental Representative argued that it was the appellant's responsibility to ensure the eligibility of cenvat credit, even if distributed by their head office as an ISD. The credit availed by the appellant on ISD invoices was claimed to include service tax elements for exempted goods manufactured at a specific unit, which had been confirmed against the head office acting as the ISD. However, upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the adjudication order was passed hastily, overlooking the submissions made by the appellant in their defense. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice, leading to the allowance of the stay petitions and the decision to take up the appeals for disposal.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant had submitted a detailed defense on 18.01.13, which was not considered in the impugned order passed on 27.12.12. Due to this procedural flaw and the violation of natural justice, the Tribunal deemed the impugned order unsustainable. Without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration following the principles of natural justice. The appellant was granted the liberty to present evidence in support of their case during the denovo proceedings. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and natural justice in adjudication processes.

← Previous Next →