2014 (8) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Commissioner remanded matter back as no reason for denial is stated in SCN - Held that - Tribunal in the case of Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. (2013 (3) TMI 303 - CESTAT NEW DELHI), after considering the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. (2007 (3) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and the Hon ble Gujarat High Court s decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Medico Labs - 2004 (9) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD dismissed the Revenue s appeal - Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the matter for re-examination of the evidences in respect of registration certificate and other issues. Therefore, after considering the merits of the case as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. (supra) - No reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on various services.
2. Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order where CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 18,88,786 was denied on specific grounds. The adjudicating authority had denied credit on unspecified documents, service tax paid on certain activities, and services used for electricity generation. However, it was noted that the authority did not provide reasons for denial in the adjudication order. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed a re-examination with proper hearing and documentation, emphasizing the need for reasons to be stated for credit denial.

2. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power to remand the matter, citing legal precedents. The respondent, on the other hand, relied on different Tribunal decisions to support the remand power of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal referred to previous cases and highlighted that the power to remand is inherent in Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was emphasized that in certain circumstances, remand for fresh adjudication is the just and proper order to ensure fairness and justice. The Tribunal concluded that the power to remand the matter back exists under Section 35A(3) of the Act.

3. Upon reviewing the impugned order and considering the Tribunal's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Tribunal upheld the decision to remand the matter for re-examination of evidence related to registration certificates and other issues. The Tribunal noted that the case laws relied upon by the Revenue were not applicable to the current case, ultimately rejecting the appeal filed by Revenue and affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of denial of CENVAT credit and the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions involved in the case.