2014 (6) TMI 789 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - Availment of credit on inputs which were common inputs and consumed for the manufacturing of exempted final products - Rejection of valuation adopted by assessee - Held that - Commissioner disposed of appeal which was not good way of dealing - if the Commissioner is not accepting the figures provided by the appellant then he should intimate the appellant the correct figure according to him is required to be considered. - Following decision of Orkay Glass Industries 2012 (2) TMI 438 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and Rochem Separation Systems (I) Pvt. Limited 2012 (4) TMI 513 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of stay petitions against order-in-original confirming demand, interest, and penalties.
2. Calculation of demand related to exempted goods and ineligible CENVAT credit.
3. Reversal of CENVAT credit for common inputs used in manufacturing exempted final products.
4. Retrospective amendment in Finance Act, 2010 and Section 73.
5. Release of seized documents for preparing defense.
6. Directions for expeditious completion of the matter.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to the disposal of three stay petitions against an order-in-original confirming a demand of Rs. 1.59 Crores and Rs. 11.62 Lakhs in interest and penalties on all the appellants. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals due to a narrow issue.

2. The demand of Rs. 1.59 Crores was calculated as 10% of the value of exempted goods manufactured using CENVAT credit of common inputs, while the demand of Rs. 11.62 Lakhs was related to ineligible CENVAT credit availed.

3. The main issue revolved around the reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to common inputs used in manufacturing exempted final products. The Tribunal noted that after a retrospective amendment in the Finance Act, 2010, the situation had changed. The Tribunal referred to previous cases and emphasized the need for reconsideration by the Commissioner.

4. The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner had not properly dealt with the situation, as seen in the case of Orkay Glass Industries and Rochem Separation Systems. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

5. The judgment also addressed the release of seized documents requested by the appellants for preparing their defense against the show cause notice. The Tribunal found merit in the request and directed the adjudicating authority to release the documents.

6. Lastly, considering the matter dated back to 2007, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to expedite the entire process for resolution. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court, providing comprehensive directions for further proceedings.