2012 (11) TMI 1010 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Procedural lapses and the tax invoices do not contain all the particulars - Held that - these are all rectifiable errors and if they are rectified as claimed by counsel, the same can be allowed subject to the condition that the appellant is eligible to avail such cenvat credit. As regards the challan and the invoices in the name of ISD, there are catena of decisions, which take a view that such credit should not be denied to the appellant. Be that as it may, we find that the issue needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority, keeping in mind the ratio that has been laid by tribunal in various decisions. At this juncture, ld. counsel undertakes to produce all documents before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in order to satisfy him regarding the eligibility of cenvat credit as provided under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of disallowed Cenvat credit and penalty amounts.

Analysis:
1. The stay petition was filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of disallowed Cenvat credit and penalty amounts. The adjudicating authority confirmed the disallowed amounts due to the appellant availing ineligible Cenvat credit on service tax paid on input services lacking necessary particulars and used for post-clearance activities of dutiable goods. The appellant argued that errors were rectifiable, especially concerning the eligibility of Cenvat credit on CHA services for export consignments. The appellant cited precedents and procedural lapses as grounds for reconsideration.

2. The arguments presented highlighted the need for a reevaluation of the eligibility of Cenvat credit and rectifiable errors in the invoices. The appellant emphasized the need for procedural rectifications and cited relevant case law to support their position. The Departmental Representative acknowledged procedural lapses but stressed the importance of adhering to the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a specific case.

3. After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found that the denials were primarily due to procedural lapses and rectifiable errors in the documentation. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reexamination by the adjudicating authority, taking into account relevant precedents and legal principles. The appellant's offer to produce additional documents for verification was deemed reasonable, leading to the decision to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration.

4. The Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a thorough reconsideration. The adjudicating authority was directed to obtain a report from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner regarding Rule 9(2) compliance and ensure the appellant's access to all relevant documents. The principles of natural justice were to be followed throughout the reconsideration process, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, leaving all issues open for further examination.