9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 88 - AT - Central ExciseAvailment of Cenvat credit on the basis of credit notes - Held that - appellant has taken various grounds before the first appellate authority while assailing the order of the adjudicating authority and has relied upon various case laws which were in his favour. I find that the first appellate authority has not given any finding on the merits of the case and has only come to the conclusion that the appellant has not passed on the incidence of duty. In my view, the impugned order is a non-speaking order. As I am remanding the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
Availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of credit notes. Analysis: The appeal was directed against an order rejecting a refund claim due to the incorrect availment of credit on the basis of credit notes, instead of filing a refund claim. The appellant debited an amount and filed the refund claim later. However, it was observed that the credit notes were issued after the goods were cleared, making the appellant ineligible to claim that the duty incidence had not been passed on. A show cause notice was issued, and the refund claim was rejected under relevant sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The first appellate authority upheld the original order without delving into the merits of the case or considering relevant case laws in favor of the appellant. Upon review, the judge found that the first appellate authority had not properly appreciated the issue at hand and had failed to consider relevant case laws. The judge noted that the first appellate authority's decision was non-speaking and lacked reasoning. As a result, the judge set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the first appellate authority for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of following the law and granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the judgment highlighting the need for a thorough reconsideration of the issue at hand by the first appellate authority in accordance with the prevailing laws and after providing the appellant with a fair hearing.
|
